Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1146 (MP)

Brijlal Meshram v. Rukmani Bai

2022-09-15

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2022
ORDER 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties since pleadings are complete therefore petition is finally heard. 2. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 19.4.2022 (Annexure P/4) passed by M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society dated 30.9.2021 and approved the proposed punishment mentioned in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioners on 18.8.2021. 3. Shri Lala learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a complaint was made before the Joint Registrar by some of the members of a Society i.e. Milan Machhua Sahakari Samiti, Mydt. Tekadi, Distt. Balaghat alleging that the petitioners have taken some loan for the society but that has not been repaid by them, therefore, they are not eligible to be continued as a member of the society and as such they should be expelled from the membership of the society and on their complaint an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted before the Joint Registrar. In the enquiry report, it was mentioned that the loan has been taken by the members of the society and they were under obligation to repay the same but since they did not repay the same, therefore, they are not eligible to be continued as member of the society. The Joint Registrar after considering the enquiry report has passed an order on 30.09.2021 observing therein that the loan amount was taken by the petitioners not for the society but for their personal gains and, therefore, a show cause under the provisions of Section 19(C) M.P. Co-operative Society, 1960 was issued asking them as to why their membership from the society should not be terminated was held to be invalid and was quashed by Joint Registrar. He submits that the Tribunal although set aside the order of Joint Registrar reiterating the facts involved in the case but no reason was assigned as to why the finding given by the Joint Registrar was not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 4. He submits that the Tribunal although set aside the order of Joint Registrar reiterating the facts involved in the case but no reason was assigned as to why the finding given by the Joint Registrar was not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 4. Shri Lala further submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is a nonspeaking order and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside because unless reasons are assigned in the order which is passed by the quasi judicial authority or judicial authority, the same cannot be considered to be an order in the eyes of law. 5. Shri Tiwari and Shri Saxena appearing for the respondents submit that the Joint Registrar has given a specific finding taking note of the observation made in the enquiry report and that fact has also been reproduced by Tribunal which otherwise indicates that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the observation made by the Joint Registrar in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, was not proper and therefore finally the order of Joint Registrar has been set aside. They submit that the order of Tribunal is therefore, does not call for any interference and as such Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of Joint Registrar in view of the finding and specific observation made in the enquiry report in which it is observed that the loan has been taken in the name of society, ergo it was obligatory for the members of the society to repay the same and if that is not done, the expulsion of those members was proper and therefore, setting aside the show cause notice proposing the punishment of their expulsion was also not proper on the part of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society. 6. After hearing the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the Tribunal although set aside the order of Joint Registrar but not assigned any reason as to why the order of Joint Registrar was not proper and required to be set aside. The Tribunal reproduced the relevant facts in its order but not given any specific finding as to why the order of the Joint Registrar was defective and finding given therein was not sustainable and therefore, needs to be set aside. 7. The Tribunal reproduced the relevant facts in its order but not given any specific finding as to why the order of the Joint Registrar was defective and finding given therein was not sustainable and therefore, needs to be set aside. 7. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has considered the object of assigning reason in the order passed by the authority acting either on administrative side or as a quasi-judicial authority. The Supreme Court has considered the necessity of assigning reason and also summarized the principle of following natural justice and held as under:- "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "œrubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decisionmaking not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "œdue process"." 8. In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra), which clearly provides that the order passed by the authority without assigning any reason is not an order in the eyes of law and is not sustainable, I am also of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is vulnerable as it is a non-speaking order and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to pass a afresh order assigning specific reason as to why the order of Joint Registrar was not proper and on what ground it requires to be set aside. 9. The tribunal is therefore directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of 30 days from today. 10. 9. The tribunal is therefore directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of 30 days from today. 10. Parties are also directed to remain personally present before the Tribunal on 26.9.2022. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.