The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1167 of 2023 ------ Maya Gupta, aged about 38 years, wife of Sudesh Prasad, resident of Mahuandanr, Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District-Latehar, Jharkhand. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office at The Officer of the Deputy Commissioner, P.O., G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali and District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3.Circle Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Office of Circle Officer, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4.Revenue Sub Inspector, Ranchi having its office at Office of Circle Officer, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5.Circle Inspector, Ranchi having its office at Office of Circle Officer, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I Mr. Awnish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I Order No. 04/Dated: 18th December, 2023 ------ 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 11.12.2022 passed in Mutation Case No. 760 R27/2022-23/Urban whereby the application of the petitioner for mutation of the land in question has been rejected by respondent no. 3- Circle Officer, Ranchi without assigning any reason for such refusal; as also for direction upon the respondents- authorities to pass reasoned order after duly considering 2 the fact in connection with Mutation Case No. 1787 R27/2022-2023/Urban. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under: 3. The writ petitioner purchased a piece of land by virtue of registered sale deeds from one Indu Agarwal on 12.03.2020. After registration of the land in question, she applied for mutation of the said land under the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1973’] which was registered as Mutation Case No. 760 R27/2022- 23/Urban, before Circle Officer, Ranchi. The Circle Officer, Ranchi rejected the said application for mutation vide order dated 11.12.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition.
Decision
4. The ground has been taken for filing the writ petition that no cogent reason has been assigned in the impugned order, save and except the reason that the application for mutation is rejected on the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in absence of any reason for rejection of the mutation application and merely by referring the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector, the application for mutation has been rejected, which cannot be said to be speaking and reasoned one. Therefore, submission has 3 been made that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG-I appearing for the respondents-State has raised the issue of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal and revision under Section 15 and 16 of the Act, 1973. 7. In response thereto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute about the legal provision of availability of remedy of appeal and revision but the instant writ petition is fit to be entertained on the ground that in absence of reason contained in the order passed by the Circle Officer concerned it will be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the writ petition is well maintainable before this Court. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the order passed by the Circle Officer, Sahar, Ranchi which is impugned in this writ petition. 9. This Court, before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to first decide the issue of maintainability since the same is the objection raised on behalf of State. 10. The law is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there is no embargo in entertaining the writ petition rather restriction is upon the High Court 4 where to entertain the writ petition and where not to entertain if there is remedy available under the statute of appeal or revision. 11. The fundamentals of availability of alternate remedy of appeal has well been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors [(1998) 8 SCC 1] wherein the issue of maintainability of writ petition, even if there is availability of remedy of appeal/revision has been dealt with. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that even in case of availability of remedy of appeal/revision the writ petition is fit to be entertained by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the following parameters/conditions are available i.e., if the order is passed without following the principles of natural justice; the order is contrary to the statutory provision and if the order is passed in gross miscarriage of justice. 12. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors (supra) are quoted as under: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for 5 issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” Further in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. - Union of India & Others [(2020) 13 SCC 285], the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that mere existence of alternate Forums, where the aggrieved parties may secure relief, does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, rather, it is a factor to be taken into consideration by the high Court amongst several factors. The decision, whether or not to entertain an action in its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the 6 High Court on examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Mere existence of alternate Forums, where the aggrieved parties may secure relief, does not create a legal bar on the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, rather it is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. For ready reference, paragraphs19 and 22 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “19. ... The existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court. The decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 22. The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to 6 exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors.…” It is, thus, evident that the writ petition will be said to be maintainable in the following eventualities: (i) If there is violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) If the decision has been taken contrary to the statutory mandate; (iii) If the decision so taken amounts to miscarriage of justice. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the ground that in absence of any reason the order impugned 7 is said to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard has laid down the proposition that the reason is the soul of the order and in absence thereof the order will be said to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-19 as under:- “… … …Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless. … …” 15. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 at paragraph 47 has held as under: “47. --------- (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….. 16. This Court has now proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order based upon the settled position in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of 8 principles of natural justice in absence of any reasoned order or not? 17. This Court on perusal of the impugned order dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) has found that the statutory authority i.e., the then Circle Officer, Sahar, Ranchi while exercising the statutory power conferred under Section 14 of the Act, 1973 has rejected the aforesaid application for creation of mutation in favour of writ petitioner assigning the reason that based upon the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector, the mutation is rejected. But what has come in the said report of the Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector has not been dealt with so as to petitioner be able to know the reason before preferring the appeal and to mete out the said reason of rejection of said application. 18. This Court, in view of the aforesaid settled position as referred hereinabove regarding implication of the reason to be available in the impugned order which is apparent from the bare reading of the same, is of the view that in absence of any finding to that effect to be said to be without any reason, the impugned order is construed to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 19. This Court, after coming to the aforesaid conclusion and applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of 9 Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors (supra) wherein it has been held that the order passed by the authority if found to be in violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is well maintainable before the High Court, is of the view that the writ petition is well maintainable. 20. Now coming to the merit of the present case, it is evident from the impugned order that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order while the Circle Officer in exercise of power conferred under Section 14 of the Act, 1973 has been conferred with the power to adjudicate by taking decision regarding the creation or rejection of the entry to be made in the revenue register. 21. Herein, as would be evident from the impugned order no reason has been assigned save and except the reference of the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector and as such according to considered view of this Court impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. 22. In the result the writ petition deserves to be allowed, accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. Since the petitioner has already filed another application for mutation of the land in question being Mutation Case No. 1787 R27/2022-2023/Urban, as such 10 the Circle Officer is directed to pass a fresh speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order assigning therein the reason for passing such order. 24. Before parting with this order, it requires to refer herein that when the statute confers power upon the Circle Officer under the Act, 1973 it is the bounden duty of the concerned Circle Officer to pass order so as to make it transparent by assigning the reason while taking such decision either allowing or rejecting the application. But this Court failed to understand that merely by making reference of the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector and in absence of reason thereto without giving any finding by the statutory authority why the adverse report is being accepted by the Circle Officer, Sahar, Ranchi while exercising statutory duty. 25. Law is well settled that when the statute confers power upon the administrative authority the due application of mind is required to be applied and it is not that merely on the basis of report the decision is to be taken by the statutory authority. 26. Herein it is evident from the impugned order that the Circle Officer has not given any reason rather it is upon the report of Revenue Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector the application for mutation has been rejected. 11 27. Further reason has also not been assigned, which is now coming into way of writ petitioner in filing the appeal raising the issue that on what ground the appeal will be filed. The aforesaid predicament of the writ petitioner is quite understandable due to the reason that when the power of appellate authority is being invoked then there must be a ground to prefer an appeal against the finding which is only to be based upon the reason if assigned in the order passed by the authority which is to be appealed. 28. The writ petitioner herein only for the aforesaid reason has preferred the writ petition as to how and on what ground the appeal will be filed. 29. This Court considers it very serious and finds it failing in discharge of statutory duty by the authority concerned. 30. As such it is a fit case where the matter is required to be referred before the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to deal with such officers especially the officers who are not passing the order without assigning the reason for rejecting or allowing the application filed by party concerned. 31. So far as the present case is concerned, let an appropriate proceeding be initiated against the concerned Circle Officer, Sahar, Ranchi who had passed the impugned order so that massage be go to the other incumbent and 12 such type of decision may not be taken in future creating difficulties to the litigants concerned. 32. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Alankar/- (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)