# Shiv Singh Rana v. The Dy. Registrar Sahkari Societies, Agra and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-09-28
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-singh-rana-v-the-dy-registrar-sahkari-societies-agra-and-others-39466
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3All] Shiv Singh Rana V. The Dy. Registrar Sahkari Societies, Agra and others
113
vacancy shall be caused in the
building. In the present case, the authority
below has erred in law and committed a
mistake which is apparent on the ace of the
record in holding that by induction of the
petitioner by the deceased tenant resulted
in vacancy in the building in question,
particularly when it was not disputed that
the petitioner was the real brother and only
heir of the deceased tenant. Thus in my
opinion neither on induction of the
petitioner in the building I question nor on
the death of the original tenant the building
in question fell vacant. This writ petition,
therefore, deserves to be allowed.

14. The Writ petition succeeds and is
allowed with cost. The order dated
31.10.1998
is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondents are restrained from interfering
in the possessions of the petitioner over the
building in question except in accordance
with law.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW SHWLWLRQ 1R RI

6KLY 6LQJK 5DQD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 'HSXW\ 5HJLVWUDU 6DKNDUL 6RFLHWLHV
83 $JUD 'LYLVLRQ $JUD DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL % 5DP
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL .1 0LVUD
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

3HWLWLRQHU 6HFUHWDU\ RI D &RRSHUDWLYH
6RFLHW\ &KDUJH VKHHWHG DQG IRXQG JXLOW\
DIWHU
HQTXLU\
6HUYLFH
WHUPLQDWHG
3HWLWLRQHU¶V DSSHDO GLVPLVVHG E\ DSSHOODWH
DXWKRULW\
ZLWKRXW
UHFRUGLQJ
UHDVRQV
+HQFH DSSHOODWH RUGHU VHW D DVLGH ± 1RQ
DSSOLFDWLRQ RI PLQG
+HOG 3DUD
$ SHUXVDO RI WKH DSSHOODWH RUGHU GDWHG
WK
-DQXDU\

FRS\
RI
ZKLFK
LV
$QQH[XUH
&$
WR
&RXQWHU
$IILGDYLW
VKRZV WKDW WKH $SSHOODWH $XWKRULW\ KDV
QRW UHFRUGHG DQ\ UHDVRQV IRU XSKROGLQJ
WKH RUGHU RI WKH 2ULJLQDO $XWKRULW\ 7KH
$SSHOODWH $XWKRULW\ KDV PHUHO\ UHFRUGHG
WKH
IDFWV
DQG
WKHUHDIWHU
JLYHQ
LWV
FRQFOXVLRQ 7KHUH LV D GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ
UHDVRQV DQG FRQFOXVLRQ
&DVHV 5HIHUUHG
$,5 6&
$,5 6&
$,5 6&
 6&&

By the Court

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner was a Secretary of a
Co-operative Society. He was charge
sheeted and after an enquiry he was found
guilty and his service was terminated, vide
order dated 28th September 1999. He filed
an appeal against the termination order,
which has been dismissed. Aggrieved, this
Writ Petition has been filed.

3. A perusal of the appellate order
dated 15th January 2000, copy of which is
Annexure CA-14 to Counter Affidavit,
shows that the Appellate Authority has not
recorded any reasons for upholding the
order of the Original Authority. The
Appellate Authority has merely recorded
the
facts
and
thereafter
given
its
conclusion. There is a distinction between
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
114
reasons and conclusion. The earlier view
of the Supreme Court was that an order of
affirmance need not give reasons, vide
M.P. Industries Limited. Versus Union of
India, AIR 1966 SC 671 but subsequently
the Supreme Court changed its view and
held that an order of affirmance too must
give reasons, vide Bhagat Raja versus
Union of India, AIR 1967 S.C 1606,
Travancore Rayons versus Union of India,
AIR 1971 SC 862 and C.B. Gautam versus
Union of India, 1993 (1) SCC 78.

4. No doubt the Appellate Authority
need not go into details and give a detailed
judgement like that of a Court of law, but
it must give at least in brief its reasons
showing application of mind. Since that
has not been done, we set aside the
Appellant Authority's order dated 15th
January 2000 and remand the matter to the
Original Authority to pass a fresh order
expeditiously giving reasons and after
hearing the Petitioner in accordance with
law.

5. We make it clear that we are not
setting aside the order of the Original
Authority dated 28th September 1999 but
only of the Appellate Authority. Also we
make it clear that we have allowed the
petition only on one point, and we are not
dealing with the other points raised in this
petition.

Petition allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW SHWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DGKD 5DPDQ DQG RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH 'LVWULFW 0DWKXUD
DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
$QLWD 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL %' 0DKGK\DQ

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 3RZHUV
XQGHU
±
1RW
WR
EH
H[HUFLVHG
ZKHUH
GLVSXWHG TXHVWLRQV RI IDFW DUH LQYROYHG
+HOG 3DUD
7KH UHDO LQWHQWLRQ RI 5HVSRQGHQW QRV WR
 PD\ EH WR LQVWDOO WKH VWDWXH LQ WKH ODGV
RI WKH SHWLWLRQHUV E\ FODLPLQJ LW WR EH
WKHLUV 7KH TXHVWLRQ KRZHYHU QHFHVVDULO\
EHLQJ RI IDFW FDQQRW EH DSSURSULDWHO\
DGMXGLFDWHG
XQGHU
$UWLFOH

RI
WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD EXW E\ DQ\ FLYLO
FRXUW XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI WKH FRGH RI FLYLO
SURFHGXUH
RU
EHIRUH
DQ\
RWKHU
DSSURSULDWH
IRUXP
KDYLQJ
VXFK
MXULVGLFWLRQ WR JUDQW LQMXQFWLRQ WKRXJK LW
ZDV
DQG
ZLOO
EH
GXW\
RI
WKH
SROLFH
$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ WR WDNH DSSURSULDWH DFWLRQ
XQGHU WKH SROLFH $FW ,3& DQG &U3&
DQG RI WKH &LYLO $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ XQGHU WKH
&U3& WR SURWHFW FLWL]HQV ZKRVH SURSHUW\
LV
VRXJKW
WR
EH
VTXDQGHUHG
RU
PLVDSSURSULDWHG E\ DQ\ RQH E\ WDNLQJ ODZ
LQ KLV RZQ KDQGV DQGRU E\ UHVRUWLQJ WR
DSSUHKHQVLRQ RI EUHDFK RI WKH SHDFH