# Ahmad Ullah v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 25502 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ahmad-ullah-v-union-of-india-ors-44657
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

A. Administrative Law - Allotment of
retail dealership - Natural Justice -
Category of Petitioner changed from
Group 1 to Group-3 for retail outlet
dealership-no
reason
provided
-
impugned order quashed.

Held: - It is settled law that reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion. An order
without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To
give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One
of the most important aspect for necessitating
to record reason is that it substitutes
subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled
that not only the judicial order, but also the
administrative order must be supported by
reasons recording in it. (Para 8)

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,930 of 80,429. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39930 for what follows._

1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusively recorded. However in none
of these writ petitions was a final enquiry
as contemplated under Rule 6 of the 1997
Rules concluded nor were any conclusive
findings of misconduct, misappropriation
or loss in accordance with the procedure
prescribed
thereunder
recorded.
The
impugned actions consequently cannot be
sustained even on the principles as
formulated in Bhanati Devi.

43. On a consideration of the
aforesaid conclusions the Court holds: -

A. The expression "Prescribed
Authority" referred to in Section 27(2) of
the Act
means
an
authority
duly
designated for that purpose in accordance
with the provisions made in Section
2(q)(ii);

B. The State has failed to
establish that the District Magistrate was
duly notified as the Prescribed Authority
in accordance with the mandate of
Section 2(q)(ii). In the absence of a
notification
designating
the
District
Magistrate as the competent authority for
the purposes of Section 27(2), the orders
of
surcharge
impugned
cannot
be
sustained;

C.
The
prescription
of
a
procedure for assessment and recovery of
surcharge in Chapter XIII of the Rules
and the assignment of a role to the
District
Magistrate
or
the
District
Panchayat Raj Officer thereunder cannot
be held to be a compliance of the
requirement of Section 27(2);

D. Rules 256-259 as contained
in Chapter XIII of the Rules are only an
extension of the requirement placed by
Section 27(2) to lay in place a structure to
"fix
the
amount
of
the
surcharge
according to the procedure that may be
prescribed";

E.
Section
27(2)
neither
sanctions nor envisages the designation of
a Prescribed Authority by way of a rule or
other subordinate legislation;

F. The prima facie findings of
wrongdoing arrived at during the course
of or in contemplation of an enquiry
initiated under Section 95(1)(g) cannot
form the foundation for levy or recovery
of surcharge.

44. Accordingly and for the reasons
noted above, all these writ petitions shall
stand allowed. The impugned orders
levying
surcharge
as
also
all
consequential directions for recovery
shall consequently quashed. It is however
left open to the State respondents, if so
chosen and advised, to proceed further in
accordance with law bearing in mind the
conclusions recorded in this judgment.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1268

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 25502 of 2019

Ahmad Ullah ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Azizur Rahman Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vikas Budhwar, Sri Yogendra
Kumar
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1269
A. Administrative Law - Allotment of
retail dealership - Natural Justice -
Category of Petitioner changed from
Group 1 to Group-3 for retail outlet
dealership-no
reason
provided
-
impugned order quashed.

Held: - It is settled law that reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion. An order
without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To
give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One
of the most important aspect for necessitating
to record reason is that it substitutes
subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled
that not only the judicial order, but also the
administrative order must be supported by
reasons recording in it. (Para 8)

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of cases cited: -
1. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota
Vs Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785
2. M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs UOI, (1969)
(3) SCC 868
3.S.N. Mukherjee Vs UOI, (1990) 4 SCC 594
4. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs Depyty
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati &
ors., (2015) 8 SCC 519
5. J. Ashoka Vs University of Agricultural
Sciences & ors., (2017) 2 SCC 609
6. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs Masood
Ahmed Khan & ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496
7. Nanak Chand Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors.-Writ C No. 18164 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agarwal,
J.)

1. We have heard Shri Azizur
Rahman Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2
& 3.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 13.07.2019 passed by the
respondent no. 3; whereby, the petitioner's
candidature for Retail Outlet Dealership
in Group - 1 category has been rejected
and the same has been changed to Group -
3 category.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that on 25.11.2018, an advertisement was
issued for selection of retail outlet
dealership by the respondent - Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
for different locations. The petitioner,
vide online application dated 21.12.2018,
applied for the location on Dumariyaganj
- Bansi road, Village - Sekhui, Tappa -
Hallour, Block - Dumariyaganj, District -
Siddharth
Nagar.

Thereafter,
vide
letter/e-mail
dated
20.06.2019,
the
petitioner was declared successful in draw
of lots for the retail outlet dealership in
Group - 1 category and the petitioner was
asked to submit certain documents and
security amount. Pursuant to the aforesaid
letter, the petitioner deposited the security
amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.06.2019,
along with the documents.

4. Thereafter, by the impugned
letter/order
dated
13.07.2019,
the
petitioner's candidature for Retail Outlet
Dealership was changed from Group - 1
to Group - 3. The petitioner has been
further informed that his candidature for
retail outlet dealership may be considered
for selection along with Group - 3
category as per the guidelines.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order dated 13.07.2019
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been passed in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice and without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. He further submits that no
reason has been assigned in the impugned
order for rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, on the other hand, submits
that the impugned order does not suffer
from any illegality and tries to justify the
passing of the impugned order.

7. On perusal of the impugned order,
we find that the respondent - Corporation
has not recorded any conclusion in the
impugned order and without assigning
any reason, the category of the petitioner
for retail outlet dealership has been
changed from Group - 1 to Group - 3.

8. It is settled law that reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion. An order
without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To
give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One
of the most important aspect for necessitating
to record reason is that it substitutes
subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled
that not only the judicial order, but also the
administrative order must be supported by
reasons recording in it.

9. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant
Commissioner,
Commercial
Tax
Department, Works Contract & Leasing,
Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4
SCC
785,
has
observed
that
the
administrative authority and the tribunal
are obliged to give reasons, absence
whereof would render the order liable to
judicial chastisement. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are
quoted as under:-

"10. The increasing institution
of cases in all Courts in India and its
resultant burden upon the Courts has
invited attention of all concerned in the
justice administration system. Despite
heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our
view, it would neither be permissible nor
possible to state as a principle of law, that
while exercising power of judicial review
on administrative action and more
particularly judgment of courts in appeal
before the higher Court, providing of
reasons can never be dispensed with. The
doctrine of audi alteram partem has three
basic essentials. Firstly, a person against
whom an order is required to be passed or
whose rights are likely to be affected
adversely must be granted an opportunity
of being heard. Secondly, the concerned
authority should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the
authority concerned must apply its mind
and dispose of the matter by a reasoned
or speaking order. This has been
uniformly applied by courts in India and
abroad.

11. The Supreme Court in the
case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
[(1990) 4 SCC 594], while referring to
the practice adopted and insistence
placed by the Courts in United States,
emphasized the importance of recording
of
reasons
for
decisions
by
the
administrative authorities and tribunals.
It said "administrative process will best
be vindicated by clarity in its exercise".
To enable the Courts to exercise the
power of review in consonance with
settled principles, the authorities are
advised of the considerations underlining
the action under review. This Court with
approval stated:-

"11. ...the orderly functioning of
the process of review requires that the
grounds upon which the administrative
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1271
agency acted be clearly disclosed and
adequately sustained."

12. In exercise of the power of
judicial review, the concept of reasoned
orders/actions has been enforced equally
by the foreign courts as by the courts in
India. The administrative authority and
tribunals are obliged to give reasons,
absence whereof could render the order
liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it
will not be far from absolute principle of
law that the Courts should record reasons
for its conclusions to enable the appellate
or higher Courts to exercise their
jurisdiction
appropriately
and
in
accordance with law. It is the reasoning
alone, that can enable a higher or an
appellate
court
to
appreciate
the
controversy in issue in its correct
perspective and to hold whether the
reasoning recorded by the Court whose
order is impugned, is sustainable in law
and whether it has adopted the correct
legal approach. To sub-serve the purpose
of justice delivery system, therefore, it is
essential that the Courts should record
reasons for its conclusions, whether
disposing of the case at admission stage
or after regular hearing.

13. At the cost of repetition, we
may
notice,
that
this
Court
has
consistently taken the view that recording
of reasons is an essential feature of
dispensation of justice. A litigant who
approaches the Court with any grievance
in accordance with law is entitled to know
the reasons for grant or rejection of his
prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders.
Non-recording of reasons could lead to
dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause
prejudice to the affected party and
secondly, more particularly, hamper the
proper administration of justice. These
principles are not only applicable to
administrative or executive actions, but
they apply with equal force and, in fact,
with a greater degree of precision to
judicial pronouncements. A judgment
without reasons causes prejudice to the
person against whom it is pronounced, as
that litigant is unable to know the ground
which weighed with the Court in rejecting
his claim and also causes impediments in
his taking adequate and appropriate
grounds before the higher Court in the
event of challenge to that judgment. Now,
we may refer to certain judgments of this
Court as well as of the High Courts which
have taken this view.

14. The principle of natural
justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the
person who is likely to be adversely
affected by the action of the authorities
should be given notice to show cause
thereof and granted an opportunity of
hearing and secondly, the orders so
passed by the authorities should give
reason for arriving at any conclusion
showing proper application of mind.
Violation of either of them could in the
given facts and circumstances of the case,
vitiate the order itself. Such rule being
applicable
to
the
administrative
authorities certainly requires that the
judgment of the Court should meet with
this requirement with higher degree of
satisfaction.
The
order
of
an
administrative authority may not provide
reasons like a judgment but the order
must be supported by the reasons of
rationality.
The
distinction
between
passing of an order by an administrative
or quasi-judicial authority has practically
extinguished and both are required to
pass reasoned orders.

15. In the case of Siemens
Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of
India Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [AIR
1976 SC 1785], the Supreme Court held
as under:-
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"6. ......If courts of law are to be
replaced by administrative authorities
and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of
cases,
with
the
proliferation
of
Administrative Law, they may have to be
so
replaced,
it
is
essential
that
administrative authorities and tribunals
should accord fair and proper hearing to
the persons sought to be affected by their
orders and give sufficiently clear and
explicit reasons in support of the orders
made by them. Then alone administrative
authorities
and
tribunals
exercising
quasi-judicial function will be able to
justify
their
existence
and
carry
credibility with the people by inspiring
confidence in the adjudicatory process.
The rule requiring reasons to be given in
support of an order is, like the principle
of audi alteram partem, a basic principle
of natural justice which must inform every
quasi-judicial process and this rule must
be observed in its proper spirit and mere
pretence of compliance with it would not
satisfy the requirement of law. ..."

16. In the case of Mc Dermott
International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.
Ltd. and Ors. (2006) SLT 345, the
Supreme Court clarified the rationality
behind providing of reasons and stated
the principle as follows:-

"56. . . Reason is a ground or
motive for a belief or a course of action, a
statement in justification or explanation
of belief or action. It is in this sense that
the award must state reasons for the
amount awarded.

The rationale of the requirement
of reasons is that reasons assure that the
arbitrator has not acted capriciously.
Reasons reveal the grounds on which the
Arbitrator reached the conclusion which
adversely affects the interests of a party.
The contractual stipulation of reasons
means, as held in Poyser and Mills'
Arbitration in Re, `proper adequate
reasons'. Such reasons shall not only be
intelligible
but
shall
be
a
reason
connected with the case which the Court
can see is proper. Contradictory reasons
are equal to lack of reasons. . . ."

17. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v.
State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368],
while dealing with the matter of selection
of candidates who could be under review,
if not found suitable otherwise, the Court
explained the reasons being a link
between the materials on which certain
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions
and
held,
that
where
providing
reasons
for
proposed
supersession were essential, then it could
not be held to be a valid reason that the
concerned officer's record was not such
as to justify his selection was not
contemplated and thus was not legal. In
this context, the Court held:-

"... "Reasons" are the links
between the materials on which certain
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions. The Court accordingly held
that
the
mandatory
provisions
of
Regulation 5(5) were not complied with
by the Selection Committee. That an
officer was "not found suitable" is the
conclusion and not a reason in support of
the decision to supersede him. True, that
it is not expected that the Selection
Committee
should
give
anything
approaching the judgment of a Court, but
it must at least state, as briefly as it may,
why it came to the conclusion that the
officer concerned was found to be not
suitable for inclusion in the Select List."

This
principle
has
been
extended to administrative actions on the
premise that it applies with greater rigor
to the judgments of the Courts.

18. In State of Maharashtra v.
Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [(1981) 4
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1273
SCC 129], while remanding the matter to
the High Court for examination of certain
issues raised, this Court observed:

". . . It would be for the benefit
of this Court that a speaking judgment is
given."

19. In the cases where the
Courts have not recorded reasons in the
judgment,
legality,
propriety
and
correctness of the orders by the Court of
competent jurisdiction are challenged in
absence
of
proper
discussion.
The
requirement of recording reasons is
applicable with greater rigor to the
judicial proceedings. The orders of the
Court must reflect what weighed with the
Court in granting or declining the relief
claimed by the applicant. In this regard
we may refer to certain judgments of this
Court.

20. A Bench of Bombay High
Court in the case of M/s. Pipe Arts India
Pvt. Ltd. V. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare
[2008 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal
280], wherein the Bench was concerned
with an appeal against an order, where
prayer for an interim relief was rejected
without stating any reasons in a writ
petition challenging the order of the
Labour Court noticed, that legality,
propriety and correctness of the order
was challenged on the ground that no
reason was recorded by the learned
Single Judge while rejecting the prayer
and this has seriously prejudiced the
interest of justice. After a detailed
discussion on the subject, the Court held:-

"8. The Supreme Court and
different High Courts have taken the view
that it is always desirable to record
reasons in support of the Government
actions whether administrative or quasi
judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not
impose an obligation upon the authorities
still it is expected of the authorities
concerned to act fairly and in consonance
with basic rule of law. These concepts
would require that any order, particularly,
the order which can be subject matter of
judicial review, is reasoned one. Even in
the case of Chabungbambohal Singh v.
Union of India and Ors. 1995 (Suppl) 2
SCC 83, the Court held as under:

"8.
...His
assessment
was,
however,
recorded
as
"very
good"
whereas qua the appellant it had been
stated unfit. As the appellant was being
superseded by one of his juniors, we do
not think if it was enough on the part of
the Selection Committee to have merely
stated unfit, and then to recommend the
name of one of his juniors. No reason for
unfitness, is reflected in the proceedings,
as
against
what
earlier
Selection
Committees had done to which reference
has already been made."

10. In the case of Jawahar Lal
Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2
SCC 222, accepting the plea that absence
of examination of reasons by the High
Court on the basis of which the trial
Court discarded prosecution evidence and
recorded the finding of an acquittal in
favour of all the accused was not
appropriate, the Supreme Court held that
the
order
should
record
reasons.
Recording of proper reasons would be
essential, so that the Appellate Court
would have advantage of considering the
considered opinion of the High Court on
the reasons which had weighed with the
trial Court.

12. In the case of State of
Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and
Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 489], while noticing
the jurisdictional distinction between
Article 142 and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Supreme Court
stated that powers of the Supreme Court
under Article 142 are much wider and the
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court would pass orders to do
complete justice. The Supreme Court
further reiterated the principle with
approval that the High Court has the
jurisdiction
to
dismiss
petitions
or
criminal revisions in limini or grant leave
asked for by the petitioner but for
adequate
reasons
which
should be
recorded in the order. The High Court
may not pass cryptic order in relation to
regularisation
of
service
of
the
respondents in view of certain directions
passed by the Supreme Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Absence of reasoning did not find favour
with the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court also stated the principle that
powers
of
the
High
Court
were
circumscribed by limitations discussed
and declared by judicial decision and it
cannot transgress the limits on the basis
of whims or subjective opinion varying
from Judge to Judge.

13. In the case of Hindustan
Times Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
[(1998) 2 SCC 242], the Supreme Court
while dealing with the cases under the
Labour Laws and Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 observed that even when the petition
under Article 226 is dismissed in limini, it
is expected of the High Court to pass a
speaking order, may be briefly.

14. Consistent with the view
expressed by the Supreme Court in the
afore-referred cases, in the case of State
of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. [(2001) 10 SCC
607], the Supreme Court held as under:

"4. ...The High Court has not
given any reasons for refusing to grant
leave to file appeal against acquittal. The
manner in which appeal against acquittal
has been dealt with by the High Court
leaves much to be desired. Reasons
introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court
ought to have set forth its reasons,
howsoever brief, in its order. The absence
of reasons has rendered the High Court
order not sustainable."

15. Similar view was also taken
by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT
2003 (Supp.2) SC 354.

16. In a very recent judgment,
the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC
568 while dealing with the criminal
appeal, insisted that the reasons in
support of the decision was a cardinal
principle and the High Court should
record its reasons while disposing of the
matter. The Court held as under:

"8.
Even
in
respect
of
administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R.
In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union
observed: "The giving of reasons is one of
the fundamentals of good administration."
In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice."
"Reasons are live links between the mind
of the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion
arrived
at."
Reasons
substitute
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
on recording reasons is that if the
decision reveals the "inscrutable face of
the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it
virtually impossible for the Courts to
perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision.
Right to reason is an indispensable part
of a sound judicial system; reasons at
least sufficient to indicate an application
of mind to the matter before Court.
Another rationale is that the affected
party can know why the decision has gone
against
him.
One
of
the
salutary
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1275
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made; in other
words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx"
is
ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance."

17. Following this very view, the
Supreme Court in another very recent
judgment delivered on 22nd February,
2008, in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Rajendra Prasad Jain Criminal Appeal
No. 360/2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 904/2007) stated that "reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion, and
without the same it becomes lifeless."

18. Providing of reasons in
orders
is
of
essence
in
judicial
proceedings.
Every
litigant
who
approaches the Court with a prayer is
entitled
to
know
the
reasons
for
acceptance or rejection of such request.
Either of the parties to the lis has a right
of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for
them to know the considered opinion of
the Court to make the remedy of appeal
meaningful. It is the reasoning which
ultimately culminates into final decision
which may be subject to examination of
the appellate or other higher Courts. It is
not only desirable but, in view of the
consistent position of law,mandatory for
the Court to pass orders while recording
reasons in support thereof, however, brief
they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot
be understood in legal parlance as
absence of reasons. While no reasoning in
support
of
judicial
orders
is
impermissible, the brief reasoning would
suffice to meet the ends of justice at least
at the interlocutory stages and would
render the remedy of appeal purposeful
and meaningful. It is a settled canon of
legal jurisprudence that the Courts are
vested with discretionary powers but such
powers are to be exercised judiciously,
equitably and in consonance with the
settled principles of law. Whether or not,
such
judicial
discretion
has
been
exercised in accordance with the accepted
norms, can only be reflected by the
reasons recorded in the order impugned
before the higher Court. Often it is said
that absence of reasoning may ipso facto
indicate whimsical exercise of judicial
discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the
Article,
Blackrobed
Bureaucracy
Or
Collegiality Under Challenge, (42 MD.L.
REV. 766, 782 (1983), observed as
under:-

"My own guiding principle is
that virtually every appellate decision
requires some statement of reasons. The
discipline of writing even a few sentences
or paragraphs explaining the basis for the
judgment insures a level of thought and
scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of
affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does
not."

19. The Court cannot lose sight
of the fact that a losing litigant has a
cause to plead and a right to challenge
the order if it is adverse to him. Opinion
of the Court alone can explain the cause
which led to passing of the final order.
Whether an argument was rejected validly
or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone
can show. To evaluate the submissions is
obligation of the Court and to know the
reasons for rejection of its contention is a
legitimate expectation on the part of the
litigant.Another
facet
of
providing
reasoning is to give it a value of
precedent which can help in reduction of
frivolous litigation. Paul D. Carrington,
Daniel
J
Meador
and
Maurice
Rosenburg, Justice on Appeal 10 (West
1976), observed as under:-

"When reasons are announced
and can be weighed, the public can have
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assurance that the correcting process is
working. Announcing reasons can also
provide public understanding of how the
numerous decisions of the system are
integrated. In a busy Court, the reasons
are an essential demonstration that the
Court did in fact fix its mind on the case
at hand. An unreasoned decision has very
little claim to acceptance by the defeated
party, and is difficult or impossible to
accept as an act reflecting systematic
application of legal principles. Moreover,
the necessity of stating reasons not
infrequently changes the results by
forcing the judges to come to grips with
nettlesome facts or issues which their
normal instincts would otherwise cause
them to avoid."

20. The reasoning in the opinion
of the Court, thus, can effectively be
analysed or scrutinized by the Appellate
Court. The reasons indicated by the Court
could be accepted by the Appellate Court
without presuming what weighed with the
Court while coming to the impugned
decision. The cause of expeditious and
effective disposal would be furthered by
such an approach. A right of appeal could
be created by a special statute or under
the provisions of the Code governing the
procedure. In either of them, absence of
reasoning may have the effect of negating
the purpose or right of appeal and, thus,
may not achieve the ends of justice.

21. It will be useful to refer
words
of
Justice
Roslyn
Atkinson,
Supreme Court of Queensland, at AIJA
Conference at Brisbane on September 13,
2002 in relation to Judgment Writing.
Describing that some judgment could be
complex,
in
distinction
to
routine
judgments, where one requires deeper
thoughts, and the other could be disposed
of easily but in either cases, reasons they
must have. While speaking about purpose
of the judgment, he said,

"The first matter to consider is
the purpose of the judgment. To my mind
there are four purposes for any judgment
that is written: -

(1)
to
clarify
your
own
thoughts;

(2) to explain your decision to
the parties;

(3) to communicate the reasons
for the decision to the public; and

(4) to provide reasons for an
appeal Court to consider."

22. Clarity of thought leads to
proper reasoning and proper reasoning is
the foundation of a just and fair decision.
In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree 1974 ICR 120, the Court went to
the extent of observing that "Failure to
give reasons amounts to denial of
justice". Reasons are really linchpin to
administration of justice. They are link
between the mind of the decision taker
and the controversy in question. To justify
our conclusion, reasons are essential.
Absence of reasoning would render the
judicial order liable to interference by the
higher Court. Reasons are the soul of the
decision and its absence would render the
order open to judicial chastism. The
consistent judicial opinion is that every
order determining rights of the parties in
a Court of law ought not to be recorded
without
supportive
reasons.
Issuing
reasoned order is not only beneficial to
the higher Courts but is even of great
utility for providing public understanding
of law and imposing self- discipline in the
Judge as their discretion is controlled by
well established norms. The contention
raised before us that absence of reasoning
in the impugned order would render the
order liable to be set aside, particularly,
in face of the fact that the learned Judge
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1277
found merit in the writ petition and issued
rule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We
have already noticed that orders even at
interlocutory stages may not be as
detailed as judgments but should be
supported by reason howsoever briefly
stated.
Absence
of
reasoning
is
impermissible in judicial pronouncement.
It cannot be disputed that the order in
question substantially affect the rights of
the parties. There is an award in favour of
the workmen and the management had
prayed for stay of the operation of the
award. The Court has to consider such a
plea keeping in view the provisions of
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, where such a prayer is neither
impermissible
nor
improper.
The
contentions raised by the parties in
support of their respective claims are
expected to be dealt with by reasoned
orders.
We
are
not
intentionally
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the contentions alleged to have been
raised by respective parties before the
learned single Judge. Suffice it to note
that the impugned order is silent in this
regard. According to the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, various
contentions were raised in support of the
reliefs claimed but all apparently, have
found no favour with the learned Judge
and that too for no reasons, as is
demonstrated from the order impugned in
the present appeals."

21. The principles stated by this
Court, as noticed supra, have been
reiterated with approval by a Bench of
this Court in a very recent judgment, in
State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh
Negi [(2008) 11 SCC 205], where the
Court noticed the order of the High Court
which is reproduced hereunder:-

"I have perused the order dated
27.5.2005 passed by Respondent 2 and I
do not find any illegality in the order so
as to interfere under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India. The writ
petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed."

and the Court concluded as
under:-

"In view of the specific stand
taken by the Department in the affidavit
which we have referred to above, the
cryptic order passed by the High Court
cannot be sustained. The absence of
reasons has rendered the High Court
order not sustainable. Similar view was
expressed in State of U.P. v. Battan1.
About two decades back in State of
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao
Chawan the desirability of a speaking
order was highlighted. The requirement of
indicating reasons has been judicially
recognised as imperative. The view was
reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh
Singh.

10. In Raj Kishore Jha v. State
of Bihar this Court has held that reason is
the heartbeat of every conclusion and
without the same, it becomes lifeless.

"11. 8. ... Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the
matter before court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling out reasons for the order made;..

12. In the light of the factual
details particularly with reference to the
stand
taken
by
the
Horticulture
Department at length in the writ petition
and in the light of the principles
enunciated by this Court, namely, right to
reason is an indispensable part of sound
judicial system and reflect the application
of mind on the part of the court, we are
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfied that the impugned order of the
High Court cannot be sustained."

22. Besides referring to the
above well-established principles, it will
also be useful to refer to some text on the
subject. H.W.R. Wade in the book
"Administrative Law, 7th Edition, stated
that the flavour of said reasons is
violative of a statutory duty to waive
reasons which are normally mandatory.
Supporting a view that reasons for
decision are essential, it was stated:-

".....A right to reasons is,
therefore, an indispensable part of a
sound system of judicial review. Natural
justice may provide the best rubric for it,
since the giving of reasons is required by
the ordinary man's sense of justice...

.....Reasoned decisions are not
only vital for the purposes of showing the
citizen that he is receiving justice: they
are also a valuable discipline for the
tribunal itself....."

23. We are not venturing to
comment
upon
the
correctness
or
otherwise of the contentions of law raised
before the High Court in the present
petition, but it was certainly expected of
the High Court to record some kind of
reasons for rejecting the revision petition
filed by the Department at the very
threshold. A litigant has a legitimate
expectation of knowing reasons for
rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then
alone, that a party would be in a position
to challenge the order on appropriate
grounds. Besides, this would be for the
benefit of the higher or the appellate
court. As arguments bring things hidden
and obscure to the light of reasons,
reasoned judgment where the law and
factual matrix of the case is discussed,
provides lucidity and foundation for
conclusions
or
exercise
of
judicial
discretion by the courts. Reason is the
very life of law. When the reason of a law
once ceases, the law itself generally
ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is
the significance of reasoning in any rule
of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause
of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As
a matter of fact it helps in the observance
of law of precedent. Absence of reasons
on the contrary essentially introduces an
element of uncertainty, dis- satisfaction
and give entirely different dimensions to
the questions of law raised before the
higher/appellate courts. In our view, the
court should provide its own grounds and
reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a
party whether at the very threshold i.e. at
admission stage or after regular hearing,
howsoever precise they may be.

24. Reason is the very life of
law. When the reason of a law once
ceases, the law itself generally ceases
(Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the
significance of reasoning in any rule of
law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of
justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a
matter of fact it helps in the observance of
law of precedent. Absence of reasons on
the contrary essentially introduces an
element of uncertainty, dis- satisfaction
and give entirely different dimensions to
the questions of law raised before the
higher/appellate courts. In our view, the
court should provide its own grounds and
reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a
party whether at the very threshold i.e. at
admission stage or after regular hearing,
howsoever precise they may be.

25. We would reiterate the
principle
that
when
reasons
are
announced and can be weighed, the
public can have assurance that process of
correction is in place and working. It is
the requirement of law that correction
process of judgments should not only
appear to be implemented but also seem
3 All. Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1279
to have been properly implemented.
Reasons for an order would ensure and
enhance public confidence and would
provide due satisfaction to the consumer
of justice under our justice dispensation
system. It may not be very correct in law
to say, that there is a qualified duty
imposed upon the Courts to record
reasons.

26. Our procedural law and the
established practice, in fact, imposes
unqualified obligation upon the Courts to
record reasons. There is hardly any
statutory provision under the Income Tax
Act or under the Constitution itself
requiring recording of reasons in the
judgments but it is no more res integra
and stands unequivocally settled by
different judgments of this Court holding
that, the courts and tribunals are required
to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In
fact, Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order
XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
requires that, the Court should record
findings on each issue and such findings
which obviously should be reasoned
would form part of the judgment, which in
turn would be the basis for writing a
decree of the Court.

27. By practice adopted in all
Courts and by virtue of judge made law,
the concept of reasoned judgment has
become an indispensable part of basic
rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory
requirement of the procedural law. Clarity
of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and
proper reasoning is the foundation of a
just and fair decision. In the case of
Alexander
Machinery
(Dudley)
Ltd.
(supra), there are apt observations in this
regard to say "failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are
the real live links to the administration of
justice. With respect we will contribute to
this view. There is a rationale, logic and
purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A
reasoned judgment is primarily written to
clarify own thoughts; communicate the
reasons for the decision to the concerned
and to provide and ensure that such
reasons can be appropriately considered
by the appellate/higher Court. Absence of
reasons thus would lead to frustrate the
very object stated hereinabove. The order
in the present case is as cryptic as it was
in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Negi
(supra). Being a cryptic order and for the
reasons recorded in that case by this
Court which we also adopt, the impugned
order in the present appeal should meet
the same fate.

28. The order in the present
case is as cryptic as it was in the case of
Sunil Kumar Singh Negi (supra). Being a
cryptic order and for the reasons
recorded in that case by this Court which
we also adopt, the impugned order in the
present appeal should meet the same
fate."

10. We find that the authority concerned
has only recoded its conclusion without
assigning any reason.