# Nkondo v. Minister of law and Order - **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 44 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000-05-02 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nkondo-v-minister-of-law-and-order-39534 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 44 In Breen v. AEU, (1971) 1 All ER 1148 Lord Denning observed that giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration.' 6. The rationale for the requirement to give reasons for administrative decisions are several (1) Reasons help to control the exercise of discretion, for it requires the authority to explain the relevant factors which he has taken into consideration, and thus it reduces the possibility of whim and caprice, (2) Reasons satisfy the desire of the affected person to know why the decision was reached (particularly when it is against him). As held in In re Poyser and Mills Arbitration (1964) 2 QB 467' The decision might be perfectly right, but the person against whom it was made was left with the real grievance that he was not told why the decision had been made.' (3) Rational criticism of a decision can be made only when its reasons are known. 7. As De Smith, Woolf and Jowell remark in 'Judicial Review of Administrative Action'. "The individual cannot be left to receive an unreasoned decision, as if the distant oracle has spoken." 8. The requirement to give reasons even for administrative decisions is being emphasized by Courts all over the world in view of the forward march of democracy, which implies transparency and openmindedness, e.g. in Ireland vide State of McGeough v.Lough Country Council ILTR 107, and in South Africa vide Nkondo v. Minister of law and Order (1986) 2 SA 756, and Jeffrey v. President, South African Medical and Dental Council, (1987). S 887. 9. As observed by Mr. Soli Sorabji, Attorney General of India, in his article 'The Duty to give reasons in Administrative Law'. ' The apprehension that giving reasons will place an unbearable burden on the administration is both exaggerated and misplaced. What is needed is not a detailed and elaborate judgement, but a brief and pithy statement of reasons for the decision.' (vide 'Democracy, Human rights and the Rulejof Law' Essays in Honour of Nani Palkhivala). 10. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated2/5/2000 as well as the impugned downgrading entries are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer level-II ignoring the impugned order dated 2.5.2000 and the impugned downgrading entries given by the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &5,0,1$/ 6,'( &5,0,1$/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, - 7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, - &ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI 6PW $QLVD ZLIH RI 6KDXNDW DQG RWKHUV «$SSOLFDQWV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU«5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV 6KUL 6XQLO .XPDU &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6KUL 53 6LQJK DQG $*$ 3All] Smt. Anisa and others V. State of U.P. and another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y the Court 1. The opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja to direct the police of police station Pahene to register the case for offences under Section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act against the applicants. That application was rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja by order dated 28.08.1999. The opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 458 of 1999 against that order, which have been allowed by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr by order dated 17.12.1999. Against that order the present revision has been preferred by the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. 2. I have heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.P. Singh for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the order of the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr is without jurisdiction. Section 156 Cr.P.C. is in Chapter XII which relates to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 156 Cr.P.C. deals with police officer's powers to investigate cognizable cases. Clause (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned above." 4. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provide that taking of cognizance of offences by the Magistrate. In such matters where cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. he had power to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Sessions Judge who has no power to take cognizance of offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has also no power to pass an order under clause (3) of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. The result therefore, is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge allowing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing the police to register the case on the basis of the application and to investigate the same is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. The proper course upon to the learned Session Judge was to issue necessary directions to the Magistrate for passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above discussion, the application is allowed and the impugned order of the Session Judge, INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 46 Bulandshahr dated 17.12.1999 is quashed. However, the matter is sent back to learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, who may pass proper order in the Criminal Revision No.458 of 1999 in the light of the discussions made in the body of the judgment. Application Allowed. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7, 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7('$//$+$%' '$7('$//$+$%' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', - 7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', - 7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, - 7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, - &LYLO 0LVF +DEHDV &RUSXV 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 'LOLS .XPDU «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD WKURXJK WKH 6HFUHWDU\ «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL 1DVLUX]]DPDQ 6KUL -RSKDQ 3G