Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.105 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Ashok Kumar Singh Son Of Late Mausham Singh Resident Of Village - Harpur , Police Station - Mahnar, District - Vaishali, Hazipur .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hazipur 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahnar, Vaishali Versus .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand K. Ojha, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari Amrita, G.P. 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 04-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.11.2012 passed by the S.D.O. (Licensing Authority) cancelling his P.D.S. licence with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad for abdication of jurisdiction in favour of the District Magistrate on whose directions the proceedings were initiated. The second submission is that the order for cancellation is completely unreasoned and non-speaking affirming the allegation for abdication of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State submits that the fairness of the authorities is evident from the fact that two opportunities were given to file show cause. It is next Patna High Court CWJC No.105 of 2013 (2) dt.04-01-2013 2 submitted that there is an alternative statutory remedy of appeal which the petitioner can avail. The Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to deal with the issue for abdication of jurisdiction as
Decision
the writ petition can be disposed off on another ground. The impugned order acknowledges that the petitioner filed reply to the show cause on two occasions when the earlier one was not to the satisfaction of the authorities. But, there is no discussion in the impugned order what cause was shown and why it was not acceptable. The impugned order is statutory in nature having adverse consequences on the petitioner. The giving of reasons was therefore mandatory and is also a requirement of Natural Justice. Unless reasons are mentioned in the order, the right to file an appeal without knowing the grounds shall become illusory. The importance of a reasoned order having adverse civil consequences has been reiterated by the Courts repeatedly notwithstanding which the authorities continue to pass orders of the present nature. The law on this aspect stands so well settled that the Court can do no better than quote from (2010) 9 SCC 496 (Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others). “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. reasons, record even to Patna High Court CWJC No.105 of 2013 (2) dt.04-01-2013 3 (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. (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. Patna High Court CWJC No.105 of 2013 (2) dt.04-01-2013 4 (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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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”.” The availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ application under Article-226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction being discretionary, it always has to be left to the satisfaction of the Court whether in a particular case it should be exercised or not. Where there has been violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, the order being unreasoned, hinders the filing of an appeal, the alternative remedy is no bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. The impugned order dated 3.11.2012 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Licensing Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order in light of the present discussion Patna High Court CWJC No.105 of 2013 (2) dt.04-01-2013 5 preferably within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If aggrieved, the petitioner may then prefer an appeal. The application is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) K.C.jha/-