Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 655 (MP)

Rasul Kha S/o Ajmeri Kha v. Slate of M. P.

2012-07-02

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
Judgment Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 22-3-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 694/2012. 3. Briefly stated, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10-1-2011 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain in Appeal No. 67/2008-09, dismissing the appellant/writ petitioner's appeal filed against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Shajapur, cancelling the writ petitioner's arms license. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22-3-2012 by observing that "this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out in the matter, the petition stands dismissed". 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in order to challenge the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, the writ petitioner had raised and argued various grounds in the writ petition, but without considering the said ground and the arguments advanced by him, the petition has been dismissed merely by observing that "no case for interference is made out in the matter". He submitted that the order being cryptic and non-speaking be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Writ Court to pass a reasoned order. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Writ Court for passing a fresh order. 7. It has now been well settled that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right of reason is an indispensable part of the sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the orders made, in other words a speaking out. [See : Kreen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA), Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the orders made, in other words a speaking out. [See : Kreen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA), Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle and others, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 407, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Parashram, 2008 AIR SCW 373, State of Punjab Vs. Bhagsingh, (2004) 1 SCC 547 ]. 8. In the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 , the Supreme Court reiterating its earlier view has stated that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant, who approaches the Court with any grievance, in accordance with law, is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to the administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. It is the reasoning alone that can enable a higher or an Appellate Court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. 9. Having considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we find that the order impugned in this writ appeal is not sustainable. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the Writ Court with request to decide it afresh, in accordance with law. The writ appeal stands allowed to the extent as aforesaid.