Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2080 (RAJ)

Ramu v. Prahlad

2018-10-09

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The matter comes up on a misc. application filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for expunging the remarks made against the applicant Mahaveer Singh in the order dated 02/01/2018. 2. The applicant, who is a Member of Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer has stated that this Court in its order dated 02/08/2018 passed following order:— “On examining the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 4.6.2018, it is noticed that the learned member-Shri Mahaveer Singh of Board of Revenue has not given any reason for admission and stay of the interim order dated 25.5.2018 of the RAA and has virtually allowed the appeal at the said stage with further directions to the Subordinate Court for implementation. Thus, by the said order the appeal before RAA has become redundant, the judicial work which the learned member, Board of Revenue is required to be performed has not been performed judiciously and resulted in chaotic situation. This Court deprecates the practice of the Board of Revenue in allowing the appeal in the aforesaid manner at the stage of first hearing itself giving reasons and findings. It is to be noted that the counsel for the petitioner had appeared as a caveator and no arguments have been noted or finding arrived before passing of such an order, whereby the interim order passed by Status quo has further stayed which has resulted in changing position of land which is a subject matter of issue to be decided by the RAA. On account of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the land had been handed over for possession to the respondent who is one of the defendant in the appeal pending before the RAA. The Chairman Board of Revenue and Principal Secretary shall take appropriate steps with regard to the procedure adopted by the concerned Member of the Board of Revenue and would initiate departmental proceedings for the said purpose against him and report to this court and submit compliance report to this court.” 3. The applicant states that such remarks were made without notice to him and adversely affect character, reputation and service career of the applicant and submits that the said remarks have been made because full facts and background of the case were not placed before the Court. The applicant states that such remarks were made without notice to him and adversely affect character, reputation and service career of the applicant and submits that the said remarks have been made because full facts and background of the case were not placed before the Court. The applicant has thereafter given details of facts of the case and the various orders passed in relation to the facts of the case. Detailed facts have been mentioned including copies of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, High Court and the proceedings undertaken by both the parties to the writ petition. All the facts have been mentioned to support the order which he has passed on 04/06/2018 which was subject matter of examination by this Court and in this manner, the applicant states that the order passed by him was correct and there was no occasion for this Court to have made the remarks, as noted above which are stated to be disparaging and have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Opportunity ought to have been given to explain the situation in which he had passed the order and there is nothing on record to justify the remark made against the applicant by the Court. 4. It is stated that the Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified to have granted the stay order and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was stayed by the applicant, was in gross violation of the previous orders of the High Court and it was his duty to see that the High Court orders are not disobeyed and thus, he was justified in staying the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 25.5.2018 bypassing the order on 4.6.2018. 5. It is also stated that there was no necessity for passing disparaging remarks against the applicant. 6. The applicant also submits that the remark of the Court of the applicant having not given any reason for admission and stay was uncalled for as it is normal practice of the Board not to give reasons for admission and interim stay and it cannot be said that the appeal was allowed. The applicant also submits that the observations of this Court deprecating practice of the Board of Revenue without giving reasons and findings was uncalled for. 7. The applicant also submits that the observations of this Court deprecating practice of the Board of Revenue without giving reasons and findings was uncalled for. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has relied on judgments passed by the Apex Court in the matter of: ‘K’ A Judicial Officer: reported in (2001) 3 SCC 54 and also in the matter of ‘K’ A Judicial Officer v. Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (2010) 11 SCC 722 . 8. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and perused the order passed by this Court dated 02/08/2018. 9. The observations made by this Court in the order dated 02/08/2018 are in relation to an order impugned in the writ petition. The applicant is a Member of the Board of Revenue who had passed the order impugned in the writ petition. Taking note of the contents of the order passed by the applicant, this Court found that no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned. The effect of the order impugned was also noted and in these circumstances, the remarks were made regarding functioning of the Board of Revenue as a whole and with a view to take corrective steps, the Chairman, Board of Revenue and Member Secretary were asked to take appropriate steps with regard to the procedure adopted by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue and initiate departmental proceedings for the said purpose against him and report to this Court and submit compliance report. 10. A pointed query was raised to the learned Senior appearing counsel for the applicant as to what adverse remark has been entered against the concerned Member of the Board of Revenue in the order dated 02/08/2018, however, he has been unable to show any adverse remark made against the concerned member although it is submitted that the observations of this Court to initiate departmental action, affects image of the concerned Member i.e. the applicant herein. 11. In the matter of: ‘K’ A Judicial Officer: (2001) 3 SCC 54 (supra), the observation made by the High Court was as under:— “Thus prima facie, no offence either under Section 380 or 201 or 120-B 1PC is made out against the petitioners. 11. In the matter of: ‘K’ A Judicial Officer: (2001) 3 SCC 54 (supra), the observation made by the High Court was as under:— “Thus prima facie, no offence either under Section 380 or 201 or 120-B 1PC is made out against the petitioners. (The manner in which the cognizance of the said offence came to be taken clearly suggests that the Magistrate wanted to rope in the petitioners in a criminal case in order to pressurize them to have the dais in Courtroom No. 8 and other civil work as noted in the petition carried out as desired by her) which matter could well be taken up by the Judge In-charge… District and Sessions Judge with the appropriate authority in CPWD on administrative side. In passing the impugned order dated 1-7-1999 the Magistrate had thus exceeded the jurisdiction (defying all judicial norms). This order (being gross abuse of process in court), there fore, deserves to be set aside under Section 482 CrPC. Having arrived at this conclusion it is not necessary to examine the plea raised on the petitioner's behalf regarding the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings under Sections 380/201/120-B IPC initiated against the petitioners by the Magistrate, are hereby quashed.” 12. Taking into consideration the above, the Apex Court expunged following part of the order in the said case:— “21. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed. The following portions occurring in the judgment of the High Court are directed to be expunged: (The manner in which the cognizance of the said offences came to be taken clearly suggest that the Magistrate wanted to rope in the petitioners in a criminal case in order to pressurize them to have the dais in Courtroom No. 8 and other civil work as noted in the petition carried out as desired by her). 13. While passing the order in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court recognized as under:— “The exercise of statutory jurisdiction, appellate or revisional and the exercise of constitutional power to control and supervise the functioning of the district courts and courts subordinate thereto empowers the High Court to formulate an opinion and place it on record not only on the judicial working but also on the conduct of the judicial officers.” 14. Under the constitutional scheme, control over the subordinate Courts and officers exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions is part of the judicial as well as administrative power of the High Court. While it is true that the adverse remarks, which affect the character of a subordinate officer ought not be made, it cannot be denied that if the Court finds that there has been a travesty of justice by passing orders without giving reasons, it is necessary that such aspect be commented upon in the order. 15. Similarly, in the matter of “k” A Judicial Officer v. Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (2010) 11 SCC 722 (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with an adverse remark made in the judgment against the District Judge wherein comments were made of the District Judge being arrogant and showing disrespect to the lawful orders. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant was asked whether orders can be passed by the Board by following practice of not giving reasons for admission and stay. 17. Confronted with the same, learned Senior Counsel admits that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Member, Board of Revenue while passing the order dated 04/06/2018. The Members of the Board of Revenue act in judicial capacity while deciding cases in relation to revenue laws. While no appeal lies to this Court and the Board of Revenue is a final adjudicating authority under the revenue laws, writ petitions are being preferred against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and this Court is flooded with cases arising out of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. The minimum which is expected from the Members of the Board of Revenue is that they should assign reasons for passing orders and in the said circumstances, this Court, finds that no reasons have been assigned for staying the interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority with further direction to the subordinate court to implement their order, resulted in the observations. This Court has no intention to make disparaging remarks against any Member of the Board of Revenue. However, the matter was sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue as it is for them to introspect their functioning. The conduct of the applicant in supporting its order by moving the present application amounts to becoming party to the writ proceedings and was definitely not required. However, the matter was sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue as it is for them to introspect their functioning. The conduct of the applicant in supporting its order by moving the present application amounts to becoming party to the writ proceedings and was definitely not required. The application for expunging remarks before this Court in the said writ proceedings was wholly unwarranted and the learned Member ought to have steered himself away from the writ proceedings by placing documents in relation to facts of the case and supporting his order. The applicant cannot become a litigant in the proceedings pending before this Court. This Court would not accept the post-facto reasons in the present writ petition. 18. Be that as it may, so far as the prayer for expunging the disparaging remarks made in the order is concerned, this Court finds that the remarks made in the order are part of the complete order passed by this Court wherein it was noticed that on account of the interim order passed by the Member of the Board of Revenue, the land in question had been further sold while the appeal was pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Since the remarks are intrinsic part of the order of this Court, the same cannot be deleted. However, so far as the observations of initiating departmental action against the applicant are concerned, the said part of the order is treated as affecting his character and is accordingly deleted from the order dated 04/08/2018. 19. The misc. application is accordingly allowed to that extent.