Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3900 (ALL)

Sheo Pal v. Basu Deo

2016-12-02

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 9. None appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 8 though the case is called in revised. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.08.1984 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as the "DDC") (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). 3. The only argument advances is that without giving any reason by a totally non-speaking order revision has been allowed by DDC. 4. I find substance in the argument. Entire order passed by DDC reads as under: %hnd1%^^;g fuxjkuh cklnso us /kkjk 48 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fon~oku cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds vkns'k fnukad 14-6-84 ds fo: ) izLrqr fd;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dk dguk gS fd xkVk la[;k 147 vkfn ij esjh eka ds pd ds ikl fn;k tk;A 2- eSaus i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquh rFkk xzke ds Hkwfp= ,oa vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 3- vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gqvk fd pd uEcj 203] 115] 32] 135] 47] [kkfygku] jkLrk] pdjksM] cpr vkfn bl la'kks/ku ls izHkkfor gksrs gSaA fuxjkuhdrkZ pdnkj la[;k 67 dks xkVk la[;k 51] 52] 57 ls gVk dj xkVk la[;k 151] 147] 150 vkfn ij fn;k tkrk gS rFkk xkVk l[;k 51] 52 vkfn ij pdnkj 147 dks feJ pd izfn"V fd;k tkrk gS rFkk pdnkj 147 dks gVkus ds ckn ml LFkku dks cpr dj fn;k x;k rFkk pdnkj la[;k 115] 32 xkVk la[;k 150 ls [kkfjt djds xkVk la[;k 188 vkfn ij izfn"V fd;k x;kA pd la[;k 103 xkVk la[;k 147 ls gVk dj xkVk la[;k 188 ij fn;k x;kA bl izdkj layXu la'kks/ku rkfydk ds vuqlkj fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA rkfydk vkns'k dk vax gksxkA**%hnd2% "This revision has been moved against the order dated 14.6.84 of the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation under section 48 of the Consolidation Act. The revision applicant has to submit that he may please be allotted in Gata no 147 etc adjacent to his mother's chak. 2. I heard arguments from learned counsels for both parties and perused the site map and records of the village. 3. It transpires from the perusal of the records that chak nos. 203, 115, 32, 135, 47, fields, passage, chakroad, remaining part, etc are affected by this amendment. Chak holding 67 of the revision applicant after being segregated from Gata no. I heard arguments from learned counsels for both parties and perused the site map and records of the village. 3. It transpires from the perusal of the records that chak nos. 203, 115, 32, 135, 47, fields, passage, chakroad, remaining part, etc are affected by this amendment. Chak holding 67 of the revision applicant after being segregated from Gata no. 51, 52, 57, is allotted in Gata no. 151, 147, 150 etc. and chak holding 147 on Gata nos. 51, 52 etc is entered as joint chak and after the chak holding 147 having been segregated, the place has been declared to be remaining part. Chak holding nos. 115 and 32 after being removed from Gata no 150 have been allotted in Gata no 188, etc. The chak 103 after being segregated from Gata no 147, has been allotted in Gata no 188. Thus, the revision stands allowed as per the revised table. This table shall be taken to be a part of the order." (English translation by the Court) 5. A bare perusal thereof would leave no manner of doubt that it is totally a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The issues raised by petitioner has not been discussed at all and straightway conclusion have been recorded by DDC. 6. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 7. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 , as under: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 8. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 8. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368 in para 18 said: "We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 836 that "rubber-stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable" 10. In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..." 11. Recently the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said: "Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 12. The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision." 13. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision." 13. Since the impugned order passed by DDC is wholly unreasoned and non-speaking the same cannot be sustained. 14. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.1984 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.