# Meena Jaiswal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 200
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-01-02
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 12745 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meena-jaiswal-v-indian-oil-corporation-ltd-varanasi-divisional-office-varanasi-45155
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Petrol pump dealership -
Appointment - Dispute regarding dimensions of
land - Non-speaking order - It's justification -
Corporation has only recoded its conclusion
without assigning any reason - To give reasons
is the rule of natural justice - The administrative
order also must be supported by the reasons
recorded in it. The reason is heartbeat of every
conclusion - Held, the absence of reason makes
an order unsustainable. (Para 14 and 29)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,901 of 91,273. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39901 for what follows._

200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital document
in order to gain advantage on the other
side then he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the court as well as on the
opposite party.

20. We find that the petitioner has
willfully suppressed material facts and has
attempted to mislead this Court by filing
incomplete copy of the Agreement dated
02.01.2019 suppressing the entire portion
of this Agreement containing conditions of
contract. He has also not filed agreed
schedule of payment of instalments which
was
part
of
the
Agreement
dated
02.01.2019. This conduct of the petitioner
also disentitles him to invoke equitable and
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

21. Insofar as the question of black
listing is concerned, it goes without saying
that in the event the respondents propose to
take any such action for black listing they
shall afford reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner before passing any
order of black listing.

22. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently,
the
writ
petition
is
dismissed with costs.
----------
(2020)10ILR A200
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ- C No. 12745 of 2020
Meena Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi
Divisional Office, Varanasi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri Sagar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Pramod Kumar Rai

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Petrol pump dealership -
Appointment - Dispute regarding dimensions of
land - Non-speaking order - It's justification -
Corporation has only recoded its conclusion
without assigning any reason - To give reasons
is the rule of natural justice - The administrative
order also must be supported by the reasons
recorded in it. The reason is heartbeat of every
conclusion - Held, the absence of reason makes
an order unsustainable. (Para 14 and 29)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Writ C No. 15653 of 2018; Panch Dev Kumar
Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 2 ors. decided
on 09.05.2018
2. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs
Shukla & Bros.; (2010) 4 SCC 785
3. M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs UOI; (1969) 3
SCC 868
4. S.N. Mukherjee Vs UOI (1990) 4 SCC 594
5. Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & ors.;
(2015) 8 SCC 519
6. J. Ashoka Vs University of Agricultural
Sciences & ors.; (2017) 2 SCC 609
7. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs Masood
Ahmed Khan &
Others; (2010) 9 SCC 496
8. Writ C No. 18164 of 2018; Nanak Chand
Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & 3 ors., decided on
03.12.2018
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
201
9. Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs
Howrah Ganatantrik Samity & ors.; (2010) 3
SCC 732
(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. We have heard Shri Vinayak
Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned
counsel for the respondent - Corporation.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
23.06.2020, by which the petitioner's
candidature for retail outlet dealership
under the OBC category has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on
25.11.2018, an advertisement was issued
inviting applications for appointment of
Regular/Rural retail Outlet (Petrol Pump)
Dealership in the State of U.P. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner applied for the retail
outlet dealership in respect of "between km.
Stone 18 to 23 on State Highway - 87,
Varansi - Bhadohi Road" at serial no. 1023 of
the advertisement, which was reserved for
Other Backward Class (OBC) category. The
minimum dimensions of the land required for
aforesaid
retail
outlet
dealership
were
mentioned as 35 meters (frontage) X 35
meters (depth). Thereafter, on 24.12.2018, the
petitioner submitted online application form
for the aforesaid retail outlet dealership, along
with non-refundable application fee under the
OBC category. The land offered by the
petitioner was taken on lease from its owner
for a period of 19 years & 11 months by
means of a registered lease deed executed on
24.12.2018. However, due to inadvertent
mistake, the dimensions of the plot of land
were wrongly recorded as 110 feet (33.528
meters) X 130 feet (39.624 meters), instead
of 116 feet (35.35 meters) X 123.3 feet (37.56
meters).

4. The petitioner's application was
rejected by the impugned order dated
23.06.2020 on the ground that the lease deed,
submitted along with the application form,
does not qualify the minimum land required
for the retail outlet dealership.

5. Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that after
completing due formalities, the petitioner
submitted online application on 24.12.2018
under the OBC category, along with all
relevant documents. He further submits that
the land was taken on lease for a period of
19 years & 11 months by way of a
registered
lease
deed
executed
on
24.12.2018,
but
inadvertently,
the
dimensions in the lease deed executed on
24.12.2018 was wrongly mentioned and
after coming to the knowledge of the same,
a rectification lease deed (Titimma) was
executed by the land owner in favour of the
petitioner on 01.02.2019. Shri Mithal
further submits that the dimensions of the
land offered by the petitioner were 116 feet
(35.35 meters) X 123.3 feet (37.56 meters)
which
is
larger
than
the
minimum
requirement of land for the retail outlet
dealership. It is further argued that the
petitioner has not made any alteration in the
boundaries mentioned in the original lease
deed or any addition/deletion of any kind.
The only dimensions, which were wrongly
mentioned in the lease deed was rectified
and therefore, the execution of the
rectification deed would relate back to the
date of execution of the original lease deed.
Hence, the aforesaid land offered by the
petitioner for establishment of retail outlet
fulfils the parameters as mentioned in the
brochure for qualifying the eligibility
criteria for individual applicant. It is further
argued that the petitioner was selected in
the draw of lots for the location mentioned
at serial no. 1023 of the advertisement. The
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner was also directed to deposit a
sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security
deposit and submit all documents for
scrutiny. On 17.10.2019, the petitioner,
after depositing the initial security deposit,
submitted all documents for necessary
verification. He also submitted the original
lease deed dated 24.12.2018 as well as the
rectification lease deed dated 01.02.2019,
along with all other documents for
verification.

6. Shri Mithal submits that the
impugned order has been passed in a
mechanical way as neither any reason has
been assigned for not looking into the
rectification lease deed, which relate back
to the execute of the original lease deed,
nor any reason has been given for the same.
He further submits that it is the duty and
the obligation on the part of the respondent
to record reason while rejecting the claim
of the petitioner. He further submits that the
respondent has passed the impugned order
without proper and due application of mind
and hence, has violated the principles of
natural justice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
on the strength of the judgement of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Panch
Dev Kumar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. & 2 Others (Writ C No. 15653 of
2018, decided on 09.05.2018), has tried to
argue that if there is a rectification in the
lease deed of the offered land, which will
relate back to the date of execution of the
original lease deed, then the same may be
considered from the date of the execution
of the original lease deed and on that
ground, the applicant's application cannot
be rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent
- Corporation tried to justify the impugned
order. It was argued that since in the
original lease deed, the dimensions of the
land were not as per the advertisement,
therefore, the authority was justified in
rejecting the application of the petitioner.

9. The rival submissions fall for
consideration.

10. We have gone through the
averments of the writ petition and the
materials brought on record.

11. The fact, inter se the parties, are
not in dispute. The only reason assigned in
the communication dated 23.06.2020 is that
the dimensions mentioned in the lease deed
does not fulfil the minimum advertised
criteria. The impugned order goes to show
that no reason has been assigned as to
whether in the rectification lease deed
executed on 01.02.2019, any change of
land was there or some new land has been
offered or, altogether, new land was
offered.

12. In our opinion, the approach of
the respondent - Corporation in rejecting
the candidature of the petitioner is hypertechnical and is neither based on any
reasoning nor proper appreciation of
material brought on record. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Panch
Dev Kumar (supra) as held as under:-

"The petitioner in the application
form provided for the land and the lease
deed which is prior to the last date of
submission of the application form. Lease
deed though for 20 years did not provide
for sub-lease, consequently, petitioner
submitted
a
rectification/supplementary
document providing for sub-lease, which in
our opinion, was permissible in view of
clause (viii) of procedure for filling and
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
203
submission of application. Clause (viii)
read with the conditions provided under the
heading 'land', the requirement of sub-lease
is a condition if the offered land is a long
term lease which may not apply to the land
leased for 20 years. Even otherwise taking
the case, as is being urged on behalf of the
Corporation, that the lease deed must
contain a provision for sub-lease, even then
in our opinion, the same can be provided by
a rectification deed executed after the last
date of the submission of the application,
for the reason that the rectification does not
tantamount
to
any
alteration/addition/deletion
insofar
it
pertains to the offered land, but merely
seeks
to
supplement
the
information
provided in the application form in respect
of the land offered on the date of
affidavit/application. The rectification will
relate back to the date on which the lease
deed was executed.

.....

..... The rectification/additional
document was submitted in support of
eligibility parameters insofar it relates to
the 'land'. Petitioner has neither made any
alteration/addition/deletion changing the
eligibility criteria in respect of the offered
land by incorporating the sub-lease clause
in the lease deed offered prior to the date of
submission of the application/affidavit
which is not a ground to render the
applicant ineligible either under the
Brochure or Manual. ... ... The rectification
deed/supplementary document would relate
back to the date of execution of the lease
deed which admittedly is prior to the last
date of submission of the form/affidavit."

13. The lease deed for a period of 19
years & 11 months was executed on
24.12.2018 mentioning the dimensions of
the land as 116 feet (35.35 meters) X 123.3
feet (37.56 meters). The material on record
shows that inadvertently, the dimensions
offered were wrongly mentioned, which
were rectified by executing a rectification
lease deed on 01.02.2019 and the petitioner
has submitted all the documents for
verification along with other documents on
17.10.2019. The respondent - Corporation
before passing the impugned order ought to
have verified the same and should have
applied its mind. Without assigning any
reason, the Corporation was not justified in
passing the impugned order.

14. 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.

15. 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
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
205
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 quasijudicial
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:-

"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 th matter of selection of
candidates who could be under review, if
not found suitable otherwise, the Court
explained the reasons being a link between
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
207
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 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 aforereferred 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.
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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
quasi-judicial 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."
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
209

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
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
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi Divisional Office, Varanasi
211
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 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...