In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khant lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments

Order

l:1 HON'BLI] SItI .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY CIvII- REV ISION PETITIO N No.2024 of2A24 ORDEI?: The Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved bv the order and decree datd 17.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.252 of 2020 in O.S.No.208 of 2023 by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. The pctitioner herein is the defendant and the respoldent herein is thc plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties r i, hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief lacts of rhe case are that the plaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.208 ttf 2023 under Rule 7 and, 14 of Telangana Agency Rules, 1924, read with Section 26 Order VII Rule I and 2 of CpC for declaration and consequential injunction and rectification of revenue entries under Sections 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act,

1963. During the pending of the said suit., the defendant filed I.A.No.252 ol'2020 seeking rejection of plaint, on the ground that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit and that the suit is \ barred by limitation. The Agent to Govemment, Bhadradri Kothagudem vidc order dated 17.05.2024, dismissed the said h.- ,l l 2 LNA, J C.R.P.No.2024 of 2024 application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed bY the defendant'

4. Heard Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharmii' learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, and Sri P'Chaitanya, learned counsel lor the resp gndent/Plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that 5. the leamed Agent to Govemment instead of considering the grounds raised in I.A'No'252 of 2020 and adjudicating the matter as to whether there is any cause of action to file the suit' has erroneously discussed the entire facts of the case on merits and dismissed the said application and thus' prayed to set-aside the i same.

6. Leamed counsel for the ' petitioner/defendant further contended that the Agent to Govemment neither appreciated the contentions raised and the material available on record nor recorded reasons for his decision' therefore' it is a fit case for remanding, the matter to the Agent to Govemment for fresh ir' adjudication on merits' - 1 3 LNA, J C.R..P No.202t of 2024

7. Leamed counsel for the respondenVplaintiff contended that the suit hled by the plaintiff was within the limitation and there is cause of aoion for filing of the suit. He fu{frer contended that the learned Agent to Government on due appreciation of the entirt: material has rightly dismissed the I.A.No.25 2 of 2020 in O.S.No.208 of 2023 and that the revision is devoid of merirs and hence, liable to be dismissed. r)' 8' on perusar of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Agent to Govemment has discussed the entire facts of the case, however, there is no discussion with regard to grounds raised by the petitioner for rejection of plaint and further, no reasons are recorded for dismissal of application. It is the bounden duty of the learned Agent to Government to take into consideration the grounds raised in the application, appreciate the same on merits and thereafter. pass a reasoned order.

9. In a catena of judgments, the Hon,ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal, it sharl record reasons for its conclusions. I I I I 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.2024 of 2024 \ l0 In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khant , lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- "(a) ln India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judiciat authority rnust record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is tneant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must ngt 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. (Q Reasons have virnrally become as indispensable a component of a decision rnaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by adrninistrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process ofjudicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries cornrnitted to rule of law and constitutional govemance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 5 LNA, J C.R.P..\o.2024 of 2024 facts. This is virtually the tife blood ofjudicial decision- mpking .lustifying the principle rhat reason is the soul ol j usticc. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities rvho deliver thern. Al[ these decisions serve one comlron purpose which is to dernonstrate by reason that the relevant lactors have been objectively considered. This is important for susraining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. O 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 lo principles of incrementalisrri. (l) Reasons in support of decisions lnust 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 !,ut also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence oflJudicial Candor (1987) 100 I.laryard [,aw I{eview 731-7]7); 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.202,t of 2024 \ (n) Since the requirement to record reasons ernanates frorn the broad doctrine of faimess in decision-making, the. said requirement is now virhrally a component of hurnan rights and was considered part- bf Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) l9 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v' University of Oxford [20011 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons rnust be given forjudiciaI decision'' (o) ln all cornrnon law jurisdictions judgments play a for the future. requirement of vita[ role in setting up precedents Therefore, for develoPment of law, giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virnrally a part of 'due process'." I 1. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associales (one cited supra), the High Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing lVorks Vs' State of Gujarut antl others2 observed as under:- "At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position ol law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself arnounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in rniscarriage ofjustice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter relerred to' The necessity of 2 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530 \, :1 7 LNA, J C. R P..\'o. 2 02 4 of 2 02 4. giving reason by a body or authority in support of its dqcision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between adrninistrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got btuned and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgrnent of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kratpak v. Union of India (1970) I SCR 45. The honourable Suprerne Court vide judgrnents in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Horuing Society Lirnited (2010) t3 SCC j36; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahrned Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

12. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decisions mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be thqresult of independent appreciation ofevidence adduced and the docuntents produced in the case. l 8 LNA, J C.R-P-No-202,1 of 2024 \l

13. On perusal of the plaint, it is evident that at paragraph No.4, the respondent/plaintiff mentioned about the cause of action for filing of the suit. Whereas, the petitioner/defendant in the application categorically stated that there is'no cause of action for filing of suit and that the suit is bamed by timitation. However, in the impugned order passed by the leamed Agent to Govemment, there is no adjudication as to whether there exists any cause of actibn for filing of the suit and further, there is no discussion with regard to grounds raised in the application. The learned Government to Agent has evidently not adverted to the merits of the grounds raised and contentions set out in the affidavit, filed in support of the aforesaid application and allowed the application by way of a cryplic judgmenl.

14. ln the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krdnti Assaciates (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High Courl of Gujarat in Aggarwat Dyeing and Printing lVorks (second cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned order' Thbiefore, the impugned order dated l7 .05.2024 is unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside. 9 LNA, J C.R.P.No.2024 of2024

15. In the result, Civil Revision petition is disposed of and the matter is rernitted back to the Agent to Govemment, Bhadradri Kothagudem, with a direction to adjudicate the application i.e.,- I.A.No.252 of 2020 in O.S.No.208 of 2023 afresh by taking into consideration the grounds raised and the submissions put forth by both the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, duly assigning the reasons there for. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalI stand closed. To //TRUE COPY' Sd/- N. SRIHARI, DFPUTY REGISTRAR \--_-- ECTION OFFICER

1. The Agent to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2. One CC to SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI P. CHAITHANYA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul Vf l I I HIGH COURT LNAJ DAIED:161041202ti ORDER CRP.No.2024 ot 2024 DISPOSTNG OF TIII] CRP WITHOI]T COSTS (o *d"A #" / YI1 TS A r e ( q J 3 01 tl[Y 2025 z a t DE A1 c t '.| ,'- ., ".':.: l . I