The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.P. Suresh Ram Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P. Venkanna The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT n) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY APPEAL SUIT No.385 of 202J JUDGMENT: The Appeal Suit is filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2021 by the Court of the Agent to Govemment, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein in is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parlies herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff hled suit vide O.S.No.9l of 2021 under Rule 7 of Agency Rules, 1924, read with Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of the CpC for declaration and perpetual injunction under Sections 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act. By the impugned order, the trial Court decreed the suit which reads as under:- "As a result, the Court instructs the Tahsitdar of Kothagudem to annul defendant No.2's existing passbook, specifically the portion measuring Ac.0.35gts out of the total Ac. 1.30gts. The remaining balance of Ac.0.35gts in Sy.No.20EE/l&2 shall rightfully belong 2 LNA, J A.S.No.3E5 of 202j to the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit is granted as requested, without imposing any costs."

4. Heard Sri A.P.Suresh Ram iearned counsel for the appellants, and Sri P.Venkanna, leamed counsel {or the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the learned Agent to Govemment committed grave error in passing the impugned order. He further contended that the learned Agent to Govemment without appreciating the facts of the case from a proper peispective passed the impugned order and prayed to set aside the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Agent to Govemment neither appreciated the contentions raised and material placed on record by the appellants/defendants nor recorded reasons for his decisions, therefore, it is fit for remand to the Agent to Govemment for fiesh adjudication on merits.

7. Learned counsel for the respondenVplaintiff did oppose remand of the matter seriouslv.

8. The case in O.S.No.91 of 2021 was filed by the respondent before t( learned Agent to Govemment seeking to declare the 3 LNA, J A.5.No.385 of2023 plaintiff as owner of the suit scheduled property and also for declaration of issuing of pattadar passbook and 1-B Namuna, ROR and Meeseva of the suit schedule property on the name of the defendant by Tahsildar, Kothagudem as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff.

9. A perusal of the record discloses that the leamed Agent to Govemment has not appreciated the facts of the case while passing the impugned order as it is the bounden duty of the leamed Agent to Govemment to take into consideration the averments made in the counter, appreciate the same on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

10. 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 shall record reasons for its conclusions.

11. ln Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmett Khunt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- 1(2010) 9 SCC 496 t..,. -. 4 LNA,,1 A.S.No.385 of2023 "(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 ol its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serue 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 drscretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virnrally 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 constihrtional govemance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood ofjudicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days 1an be as different as the judges and authorities who \ \ \ : 5 LMl; J A.5.No.385 of 2023 deliver them. All these decisions serve one corrunon purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant lactors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the j ustice delivery system. O Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial aurhority 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 prirrciples of incrementalisrn. (l) Reasons in supporl 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 (See David Shapiro in Defence ofJudicial Candor (19g7) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737) ; (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of faimess 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 (1994) 19 6 LNA, J A.S.No.385 of2023 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 afi. Arya v. 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 decision.' (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'."

12. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing l{orks Vs. State of Gujarat and others2 observed as under:- "At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non comrnunication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opporlunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage ofjustice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision 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 2 2022 ScC Online Guj 2530 \ \ 7 LNA, J A.S.No.3E5 oJ 2023 tirne the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India (1970) I SCR 45. 'I'he honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modem Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed 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 ofthe order."

13. Thus, the position of law that emerges frorn the decision mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is irnperative 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 the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and the documents produced in the case. ) ,

14. In the instant case, the learned Govemment to Agent has evidently not advefted to the merits of the case and contentions set out in the affidavits, filed in support of the aforesaid applications I , and allowed the suit by way of a cryptic judgment I LN,I, ] A.5.No.385 of2023

15. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associules (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Prinling WorlSs (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 Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 is unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside.

16. In the result, Appeal Suit is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, with a direction to adjudicate the suit i.e., O.S.No.9l of 2021 afresh by taking into consideration the facts 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, shall stand closed Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem. (with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Venkanna, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 . JUDGMENT AS.No.385 of 2023 + 1l l ilE S,..,- l-... (i \.. ?3 APIi 2025 (_. t DF.5 PAT THE APPEAL SUIT IS DISPOSED OF AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK b tW