# Ram Briksha Singh v. Dy. Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 906
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-10-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19746 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-briksha-singh-v-dy-director-consolidation-gorakhpur-and-others-40614
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice &
Procedure-necessity to recording the
reasons-No
reasons
recorded-while
setting a side the order passed by the
S.O.C.-impugned order passed by D.D.C.
not supported by any reason-held-liable
to be quashed.

Held: Para 8

Reverting to the decision impugned
herein, from a careful consideration of
the
judgment
rendered
by
Deputy
Director Consolidation, it is amply clear
that no reasons have been recorded by
the authority while accepting the case of
the revisionist. It is also clear that the
authority concerned h as not reckoned
into
consideration
the case of the
petitioner while allowing the revision
and setting aside the order of Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.
In
the
circumstances, I have no hesitation to
hold that the judgment impugned herein
is not supported by any reason and
therefore, the same is bad in law on
account of non-consideration of the
grievances of both the parties and by
2 All] Ram Briksha Singh V. Dy. Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others
907
this reckoning, the same is liable to be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC-851
2005 (2) SCC-235

## Text

906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
action of the respondent was quashed with
the liberty to take fresh decision in the
matter in accordance with law with the
further r direction that as petitioner was
placed under suspension prior to passing
of the impugned order that suspension
was permitted to continue till the
respondent
takes
fresh
decision
as
directed. This Court has clearly ruled in
the decision in the case of Simarjeet Kaur
(Supra) that decision if is taken to hold
departmental
enquiry
against
the
petitioner then is to be completed within a
reasonable time and if the respondents
feel that the departmental proceeding in
the facts and circumstances of the case is
not practicable a clear reason has to be
recorded.

12. Be as it may, on the facts and
discussion as made above, this court
being convinced that the impugned order
as on today cannot be sustained proposes
to quash the same. Writ petition is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by
the respondent dated 25.9.2000 (annexure
no. 1) is hereby quashed with the liberty
to the respondents to proceed in the
matter in terms of the judgment of this
Court as contained in para 9 in the case of
Simranjeet Kaur (Supra).

Accordingly the writ petition is
allowed/ disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19746 of 2001

Ram Briksha Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
Consolidation,
Gorakhpur and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Prakash Rai
Sri Satyendra Narayn Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri L.K. Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice &
Procedure-necessity to recording the
reasons-No
reasons
recorded-while
setting a side the order passed by the
S.O.C.-impugned order passed by D.D.C.
not supported by any reason-held-liable
to be quashed.

Held: Para 8

Reverting to the decision impugned
herein, from a careful consideration of
the
judgment
rendered
by
Deputy
Director Consolidation, it is amply clear
that no reasons have been recorded by
the authority while accepting the case of
the revisionist. It is also clear that the
authority concerned h as not reckoned
into
consideration
the case of the
petitioner while allowing the revision
and setting aside the order of Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.
In
the
circumstances, I have no hesitation to
hold that the judgment impugned herein
is not supported by any reason and
therefore, the same is bad in law on
account of non-consideration of the
grievances of both the parties and by
2 All] Ram Briksha Singh V. Dy. Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others
907
this reckoning, the same is liable to be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC-851
2005 (2) SCC-235

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition is
directed against judgment dated 31.3.2001
passed
by
Deputy
Director,
Consolidation.

2. The dispute in the instant petition
revolves round chak no. 82 belonging to
the petitioner. According to the averments
in the petition, the respondent no. 3 staked
claim for allotment of this Chak before
the Deputy Director Consolidation by
filing a revision. The case of the petitioner
is that the Deputy Director Consolidation
allowed the revision without regard being
had to the background of the facts and
without reckoning with the objection filed
by the petitioner.

3. The chequered history of the
pendency of this writ petition from 2001
onwards in this Court may be noticed
before proceeding further. The writ
petition having been instituted, the Court
granted six weeks' time on 21.5.2001 to
file counter affidavit. Sri L.K. Tripathi
who filed power to represent Opp. Party
no. 3 was further granted two weeks' time
to file counter affidavit. On 18.2.2003, the
case had to be adjourned the illness slip
having been put in on behalf of the
learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 3.
On 17.7.2003, the case again suffered
adjournment on account of illness slip of
learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party
no. 3 on 18.12.2003, two weeks and no
more time was granted to the learned
counsel for the Opp. Party no.3 to file
counter affidavit. Again on the request of
the learned counsel appearing for Opp.
Party no.3, the case was adjourned on
5.2.2004. The case was again adjourned
on 10.5.2004 on account of illness slip of
the learned counsel representing Opp.
Party no. 3. The petition came to be
admitted on 15.7.2004 granting three
weeks' time to the counsel for the Opp.
Party to file counter affidavit. On
30.9.2004 the court was compelled to
direct listing of the case peremptorily.
Even thereafter on 30.10.2005, the case
was adjourned on the illness slip of the
learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 3.
In the above perspective, this Court does
not view with equanimity the temporizing
attitude of the counsel in the matter and is
constrained to decline request for further
time to file counter affidavit and rules that
the matter be heard today.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
assailed the judgment rendered by Deputy
Director Consolidation arguing that it
suffers from an error of law apparent on
the face of record inasmuch as there is
complete non-application of mind to the
case of the petitioner in the impugned
order and further that no reason is
embolied in the impugned order and
ultimately, it has been argued that the
impugned order has occasioned great
irreparable injury to the petitioner. Per
contra, learned counsel appearing for
Opp. Party urged that although no reason
has been assigned for conclusion by the
authority concerned but the same can be
supplied by way of counter affidavit. He
further submitted that it brooks no dispute
that the respondent no. 3 was repeatedly
granted time in the last four years to file
counter affidavit and even once, stop
order was passed by the Court on
18.12.2003 but it remains a fact that no
counter affidavit has been filed and
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
therefore, it is not open to the petitioner at
this stage to assail the decision on the
solitary ground that the impugned order is
bereft of reasons.

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the materials on
record with the assistance of the learned
counsel for the parties.

6. Coming to grips with the
contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 that the reasons could be
supplied by counter affidavit, I feel called
to refer to the decision of the Apex Court
in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election
Commissioner1. The Apex Court in this
decision was dealing with the amplitude
of powers and width of functions to be
exercised by Election Commission under
Art. 321. In this decision, the substance of
what the Apex Court held is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must
be judged by the reasons so mentioned
and the same cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. It was further observed that
otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
may, by the time, it comes to court on
account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. The
Apex court also referred to observations
made in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952
SC 16 (at p. 18) which is quoted below.

"Public orders publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what
was in his mind, or what he intended to
do. Public orders made by public

1 AIR 1978 SC 851
authorities are meant to have public effect
and are intended to affect the acting and
conduct of those to whom they are
addressed
and
must
be
construed
objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself."

7. In another recent decision in
MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath
Rao Ghorpade v. Mumbai Metropolitan
Regional Development Authority2 the
Apex Court held that reasons substitute
subjectivity by objectivity. Right to
reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system. The affected party can
know why the decision has gone against
him. In the ultimate analysis, the Apex
Court remitted the matter to the High
Court for fresh consideration on merits
observing that the High Court shall pass a
speaking order recording reasons in
support of its conclusions. In its decision
(supra), the Apex Court referred to
various foreign decisions including (1971)
I All ER 1148 and 1974 ICR 120. The
crux of what has been held in the
aforesaid decisions is that "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." Taking into reckoning the
aforesaid decision, the Apex Court
observed as under:

"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

2 (2005) 2 SCC 235
2 All] Santosh Kumar Goel V. State of U.P. and others
909
decision.
Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision
has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirement 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."

8. Reverting to the decision
impugned
herein,
from
a
careful
consideration of the judgment rendered by
Deputy Director Consolidation, it is
amply clear that no reasons have been
recorded by the authority while accepting
the case of the revisionist. It is also clear
that the authority concerned has not
reckoned into consideration the case of
the petitioner while allowing the revision
and setting aside the order of Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.
In
the
circumstances, I have no hesitation to
hold that the judgment impugned herein is
not
supported
by
any
reason
and
therefore, the same is bad in law on
account of non-consideration of the
grievances of both the parties and by this
reckoning, the same is liable to be
quashed.

9. By various decisions, while
sitting in this jurisdiction, the Court has
been stressing on the need of giving
reasons by these authorities under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but
even thereafter, cases have come to fore
which gives appearance that the decisions
of this Court have not been enforced in
obedience.
The
Court
should
be
concerned with actual implementation of
its order and cannot remain a passive
pronounce of the judgment.

10. It is hoped that the authority
concerned will be visited with condign
chastisement
for
not
observing
in
compliance the earlier pronouncements of
the Court in this regard.

11. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The order dated 31.3.2001
passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation
is quashed. In consequence, the Deputy
Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur is
directed
to
pass
appropriate
orders
attended with reasons in accordance with
law after affording opportunity of hearing
to the parties.
 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 11.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34488 of 2006

Santosh Kumar Goel

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vishnu Pratap
S.C.

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963-Rule 6-A-Renewal of Mining leaseapplication for renewal by 7 days-beyond
time-instead of rejecting the same-D.M.
once referred the matter before State
Government-Rejection on the ground of
delay-held-not
proper-D.M.
ought
to
have either rejected or give opportunity
to remove the defect-order quashednecessary
direction
issued
to
give