Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 230 (ALL)

Shashi Devi Sachan v. State of U. P.

2024-01-19

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2024
JUDGMENT : SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate alongwith Sri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 5. Other private opposite parties, as stated by Sri Verma, are formal parties. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow on an application instituted under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short “Code of 2006”) registered as Case No. 13504/2021, Computerized Case No. T202110460513504 (Bhola vs. Smt. Shashi Devi and others) and the order dated 06.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 3/Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No. 1757/2021, Computerized Case No. C202110000001757 (Smt. Shashi Devi and others vs. Bhola and others) instituted under Section 24(4) of the Code of 2006 as also the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2/Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Revision No. REV/2563/2022/Lucknow, Computerized Case No. R20221046002563 (Smt. Shashi Devi Sachan and others vs. Bhola) instituted under Section 210 of the Code of 2006. 3. By the order dated 23.10.2021, the respondent No. 4 had confirmed the demarcation report dated 24.08.2021. The order dated 23.10.2021 on reproduction reads as under: 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2021, an Appeal No. 1757/2021, Computerized Case No. C202110000001757 (Smt. Shashi Devi and others vs. Bhola and others) was filed under Section 24(4) of the Code of 2006, which was dismissed by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 06.10.2022 affirming the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by respondent No. 4. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2022, a Revision No. REV/2563/2022/Lucknow, Computerized Case No. R20221046002563 (Smt. Shashi Devi Sachan and others vs. Bhola) was filed under Section 210 of the Code of 2006, which was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.12.2023. 6. On several issues and factual aspects of the case, petitioners’ counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 have advanced their submissions. 6. On several issues and factual aspects of the case, petitioners’ counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 have advanced their submissions. This Court however is not inclined to deal with the same at this stage, as only one ground is relevant for the purposes of final disposal of this petition at the admission stage more so when there going to be no prejudice caused to the parties to the litigation in view of order proposed to be passed. 7. The only ground relevant for the purposes of final disposal of this petition is to the effect that the revenue court of first instance i.e. respondent No. 4 while dealing with the application under Section 24 has not passed the reasoned and speaking order and this aspect has also not been taken note of by appellate authority and revisional authority. The reasons are required to be recorded. 8. It is a settled principle of law that an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must be a ‘speaking order’ and it must not be like the ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’. 9. In judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, (1973) 2 SCC 836 , the Apex Court observed as follows: “28.... 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 rationale nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinion or decisions recorded to be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.” 10. Lord Denning M.R. in the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 2 QB 175, 191 : (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed as under: “the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” Sir Donaldson, in the case of Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120, has observed that “failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice.” 11. Observation in the case of Regina Vs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120, has observed that “failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice.” 11. Observation in the case of Regina Vs. Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex-parte Khan (Mahmud), 1983 QB 790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420, is as under: “A party appearing before a tribunal is entitled to know, either expressly stated by the tribunal or inferentially stated, what it is to which the tribunal is addressing its mind.” 12. In the case of Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) 3 SCC 868 , the Apex Court observed: “The court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds : one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power.” 13. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. (1970) 1 SCC 764 , the Apex Court observed as follows: “The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. “Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.” 14. In the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.” 14. In the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981 while dealing with the exercise of an appellate power by the Central Government under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, it was stated thus: “It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons.....” 15. Summarizing the legal position with regard to the necessity to give reasons and pass a speaking order while exercising quasi-judicial functions in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 , it was held as follows: “(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 life blood 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. This is virtually the life blood 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. (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 “rubber 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 decision making 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. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 Para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.” (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 “due process.” 16. From the order dated 23.10.2021, quoted above, it is apparent that while passing the same, the respondent No. 4 has not recorded any finding after considering the objection dated 08.09.2021, a copy of which is annexed at page No. 124 of this petition, filed by the petitioners in the proceedings instituted under Section 24 of the Code of 2006. 17. From the order dated 23.10.2021, quoted above, it is apparent that while passing the same, the respondent No. 4 has not recorded any finding after considering the objection dated 08.09.2021, a copy of which is annexed at page No. 124 of this petition, filed by the petitioners in the proceedings instituted under Section 24 of the Code of 2006. 17. It would be apt to indicate here that the fact that the objection dated 08.09.2021 was filed before the respondent No. 2 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 5. 18. Thus, the order dated 23.10.2021 is a non-speaking order. The order of appellate authority and that of revisional authority indicate that they have also failed to take note of reasons opposing the application under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 5. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, the matter requires interference. Accordingly, without going into the merits and demerits of the factual aspects of the case and without recording any findings thereon, the orders dated 23.10.2021, 06.10.2022 and 20.12.2023 are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 4 to decide the matter afresh by means of a reasoned and speaking order after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law. 20. The petition is allowed in above terms.