# State of U.P. Thru Secretary Animal Husbandry and others v. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another (S/S 2435/2010)

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1042
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-09-16
- **Bench:** Uma Nath Singh, Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-thru-secretary-animal-husbandry-and-others-v-sunil-kumar-soni-s-o-42032
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation
of
entire
selection-on
ground-one Mr. 'A' has filed forged
certificate-who neither participated in
written examination nor in interviewapart from no illegality shown-Single
Judge rightly Quashed the cancellation
order-although it is settled law that
selected candidate got no right to claim
appointment-but
in
fact
and
circumstances of the case order passed
by Single Judge-justified.

Held: Para 20

In the instant case, from the material on
record, it clearly established that Dy.
Director
Animal
Husbandry,
Circle
Faizabad,
District
Faizabad
without
waiting for the outcome of the enquiry
report,
passed
the
order
dated
29.11.1999
in
utter
haste
without
ascertaining whether the irregularities
regarding submission of forged game
certificates were identifiable or not.
Further, the impugned order is of a prior
dated
i.e.
29.11.1999
whereas
the
enquiry report is of subsequent date i.e.
3 All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another
1043
4.12.1999. In the inquiry also, the
Inquiry
Officer
did
not
find
any
irregularity or any favoritism etc. and he
could only point out that one candidate
Inderjeet had attached some forged
certificate regarding sports. However,
the facts still remain that the above
Inderjeet
neither
appeared
in
the
written test nor in the interview and he
has also not been selected. The above
alleged irregularity in any way cannot be
held to be a valid ground for cancelling
of the selection in question that too from
the stage of interview and directing to
hold a fresh interview.
Case law discussed:
(2010) 7 SCC 678; 1995 SCC (L & S) page 791
para 10; AIR 1984 SC 1850; 1993 (1) SCC 1;
2000 SCC (L&S) 1098; 1971 (1) AIIER 1148;
1974 (4) IRC 120 (NIRC)

## Text

1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
therefore, in my opinion, he could not
move
application
for
compassionate
appointment before attaining his age of
majority or the application moved by the
mother of petitioner on 21.3.2006 for his
compassionate appointment could not be
considered on merit earlier to the date of
completion of 18 years of his age.
Accordingly, the aforesaid application
moved by petitioner for compassionate
appointment on 3.7.2007 is treated to be
within time and the application is liable to
be considered on merit. In this connection,
it is to be further noted that the petitioner
undisputedly has passed High School,
therefore, he has educational qualification
for appointment on the post of peon i.e.
class IV post in District Judgeship,
Sonebhadra. Therefore, the District Judge,
Sonebhadra is directed to consider the
claim of compassionate appointment of the
petitioner and appoint him on a class IV
post in the judgeship by satisfying himself
about his character and medical fitness
after verification of his original records of
educational qualification within four weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order before him. In case,
there exists no vacancy against class IV
post in judgeship, the District Judge is
directed to make appointment of the
petitioner on a supernumerary post of peon
in District Judgeship.

35. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Special Appeal Defective No. - 770 of 2010

State of U.P. Thru Secretary Animal
Husbandry and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and
another (S/S 2435/2010) ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.C. Saxena
Sri Mahesh Chandra

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation
of
entire
selection-on
ground-one Mr. 'A' has filed forged
certificate-who neither participated in
written examination nor in interviewapart from no illegality shown-Single
Judge rightly Quashed the cancellation
order-although it is settled law that
selected candidate got no right to claim
appointment-but
in
fact
and
circumstances of the case order passed
by Single Judge-justified.

Held: Para 20

In the instant case, from the material on
record, it clearly established that Dy.
Director
Animal
Husbandry,
Circle
Faizabad,
District
Faizabad
without
waiting for the outcome of the enquiry
report,
passed
the
order
dated
29.11.1999
in
utter
haste
without
ascertaining whether the irregularities
regarding submission of forged game
certificates were identifiable or not.
Further, the impugned order is of a prior
dated
i.e.
29.11.1999
whereas
the
enquiry report is of subsequent date i.e.
3 All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another
1043
4.12.1999. In the inquiry also, the
Inquiry
Officer
did
not
find
any
irregularity or any favoritism etc. and he
could only point out that one candidate
Inderjeet had attached some forged
certificate regarding sports. However,
the facts still remain that the above
Inderjeet
neither
appeared
in
the
written test nor in the interview and he
has also not been selected. The above
alleged irregularity in any way cannot be
held to be a valid ground for cancelling
of the selection in question that too from
the stage of interview and directing to
hold a fresh interview.
Case law discussed:
(2010) 7 SCC 678; 1995 SCC (L & S) page 791
para 10; AIR 1984 SC 1850; 1993 (1) SCC 1;
2000 SCC (L&S) 1098; 1971 (1) AIIER 1148;
1974 (4) IRC 120 (NIRC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sourabh Lavania,
learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.C.
Saxena, learned counsel on behalf of
respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of present special
appeal, appellants have challenged the
order dated 19.03.2010 passed in Writ
Petition No. 2435 (SS) of 2000 (Sunil
Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of U.P.
and others).

3. In brief, the facts of the present
case are that respondents/writ petitioners,
Sri Sunil Kumar Soni and Rakesh Kumar
approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 2435 (SS) of 2000, Sunil
Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of U.P.
and others, on the fact that Dy. Director,
Animal
Husbandry,
Circle,
District
Faizabad published advertizement dated
10.08.1998 thereby calling applications
for appointment on the post of Veternary
Pharmacists in the pay scale of Rs. 26103540, and also 20 posts in Devi Patan
Circle. Qualification for the appointment
on the said post was Intermediate with
Biology or with Agriculture.

4.

The
case
of
the
writ
petitioners/respondents was that they
belong to backward class, they fulfilled
all
the
relevant
and
essential
qualifications,
and
accordingly
they
submitted their candidature in response to
the advertizement dated 10.08.1998 for
appointment on the post of Veternary
Pharmacists, on 13.12.1998 appeared in
the written test with Roll No. 000042 and
000222 respectively.

5.

On
18.02.1999,
in
daily
Newspaper "Dainik Jagran" result was
published by the official respondents and
writ petitioners/respondents were declared
successful. Accordingly, call letters were
issued to them to appear for viva Voce
Test on 25.02.1999 by Dy. Director,
Animal
Husbandry,
Circle,
District
Faizabad, appeared in the said test and on
27.02.1999 final selection of backward
caste candidate for appointment on the
post in question has been notified and
names of the petitioners find place in the
said list at serial Nos. 3 and 6.

6. However, in spite of the said
facts, the appointment orders were not
issued to them, hence for redressal of their
grievances they approached this Court
(before Hon'ble the Single Judge) by
filing Writ Petition No. 2435 (SS) of
2000.

7. In the said writ petition, on behalf
of appellants who were respondents
therein counter affidavit was filed. The
stand taken is to the effect that in the
selection in question a complaint has been
made,
accordingly,
an
inquiry
was
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
initiated by the Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad and on the basis of the
inquiry
report
vide
order
dated
29.11.1999, the said authority had taken a
decision that not to cancel the entire
process of selection rather only the
interview shall be cancelled, since the
commission of irregularities were found
to be proved in the said interview and
accordingly it was requested to the State
Government to fix some other date for
holding interview with a view to make
fair, proper and impartial selection
without any favoritism/nepotism.

8. Further, the said writ petition
along with other matters, namely, Writ
Petition No. 2843 (SS) of 2000, Writ
Petition No. 3182 (SS) of 2001, Writ
Petition No. 172 (SS) of 2003, Writ
Petition No. 5754 (SS) of 1999 and Writ
Petition No. 562 (SS) of 2005, in which
controversy involved are identical in
nature were connected together, heard by
learned Single Judge and by a common
judgment dated 19.03.2010, the order
dated
29.11.1999
passed
by
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad has been quashed. And above
noted writ petitions are allowed except
Writ Petition No. 562 (SS) of 2005
(Mahesh Babu Vs. State of U.P.). The
finding given by learned Single Judge
while allowing the said writ petitions is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

"It
is
not
disputed
that
the
selection/interview held on 25.2.1999 was
cancelled by the Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad, on the basis of
enquiry held by him in pursuance of the
directions of the State Government. It is
also not disputed that in the said enquiry,
it was found that one Indrajeet, one of the
candidates, had attached forged sports
certificate alongwith his application form.
The case of the petitioners is that neither
he participated in the examination nor in
the interview and as such cancellation on
this ground alone is not tenable in the
eyes of law. The respondents have failed
to show that apart from Indrajeet, forged
certificates were found of the candidates,
who were selected and their name find
place in the select list. There is also no
specific denial that name of said Indrajeet
was included in the merit list of successful
candidates.

It is true that the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. It is also true that the
successful candidates do not acquire any
indefeasible right to be appointed against
the existing vacancies. However, it does
not mean that the State has the licence of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not fill up the vacancies has to be
taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
In the case of Asha Kaul (Mrs) and
another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
and others; 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 the
Apex Court held that mere inclusion in
the select list does not confer upon the
candidates
included
therein
an
indefeasible right to appointment but that
is only one aspect of the matter. The other
aspect is the obligation of the Government
to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be
reduced to a farce.

In Jai Narain Ram vs. State of U.P.
and others; AIR 1996 SC 703, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that right to seek
appointment to a post under Article 14
read with Article 16(1) and (4) is a
constitutional right to equality. In another
decision
rendered
in
the
case
of
R.S.Mittal v. Union of India 1995
Supp(2)SCC page 230, the Hon'ble
3 All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another
1045
Supreme Court pointed out that it is" no
doubt correct that a person on the select
panel has not vested right to be appointed
to the post for which he has been selected.
He has right to be considered for
appointment. But at the same time, the
appointment authority cannot ignore the
select panel or decline to make the
appointment on its whims."

On a careful considerations of the
contentions on either side in the light of
the material brought on record including
the enquiry report constituted for the
purpose
of
inquiring
into
the
irregularities, if any, in the selection of
candidates, there seems to be no serious
grievance of any malpractices as such in
the process of the written examinationeither by the candidates or by those who
actually conducted them. There is no
justifiable reason for cancellation of the
selection of the petitioners, which has
already been finalised on 26.2.1999 and
the final select list of the candidates
having been notified on 27.2.1999 after.
Only irregularity, which has been found
by the Inquiry Officer is that one Inderjeet
attached forged games certificate. No
other irregularity of any kind in respect of
any selected candidate was found in the
inquiry.

It is significant to mention that the
State Government while passing the
impugned
order
of
cancelling
the
examination has also failed to consider
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India and
others v. Rajesh P. U. Puthuvalnikathu
and another [(2003) 7 Supreme Court
Cases 285] wherein it has been observed
that where from out of selectees, it was
possible to read out the beneficiaries of
the irregularities or illegalities there was
no
justification
in
law
to
deny
appointment to the selected candidates
whose selection was not found to be, in
any manner, vitiated for anyone or the
other reasons. The en bloc cancellation is
not permissible.

What transpires from the conduct of
the respondents is that they have nothing
on record to show the Court that the
order of cancellation of selection list of
the post in question was based on sound
reasons and it was so done after enquiry.
The competent authority must be satisfied
after due enquiry that the selection has
been vitiated on account of violation of
rules or for the reason that it smacks of
corruption, favourtism, nepotism or the
alike but for doing this it must record the
reasons. In the impugned order, no
reasons
have
been
assigned
for
cancellation of the selection and in view
of the aforesaid discussion, it is not
legally tenable.

For the reasons aforesaid, all the
aforementioned writ petitions except writ
petition no. 562[SS]2005; Mahesh Babu
vs. State of U.P. and others are hereby
allowed and the impugned order dated
29.11.1999, passed by the Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad. The writ
petition no. 562[SS of 2005 stands
disposed of for the reasons indicated
hereinabove. "

9. Sri Sourabh Lavania, learned
State Counsel while assailing the order
dated 29.11.2011 submits that Hon'ble
Single Judge while observing that the
competent authority must be satisfied
after due enquiry that the selection has
been vitiated on account of violation of
rules or for the reason that it smacks of
corruption, favoritism, nepotism of the
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
alike, completely failed to appreciate that
there were serious complaints regarding
the irregularities in the process of
selection and on the basis of the
complaints, due appropriate enquiry was
got
conducted
through
Deputy
Development Commissioner, and on the
basis of the findings given in the enquiry
report with detailed reasons, the order
dated 29.11.1999 was issued to cancelled
the interview only and not the entire
selection process, as such the learned
Single Judge while quashing the order
dated 29.11.1999, has committed manifest
error of both fact and law.

10. He further submits that Hon'ble
Single Judge has not given any reason for
quashing of the order dated 29.11.1999,
and further he failed to appreciate that the
said order was issued on the basis of the
illegalities reported and found to be
established in the Enquiry Report of the
Deputy Development Commissioner and
to assign reasons in the order dated
29.11.1999 for cancellation of interview
was not at all necessary. Further any
selectee who has not been issued the
appointment order, merely on the basis
that his name has been included in the
select list, cannot claim his appointment.
In support of his argument, he placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the case of East Coast
Railway and another Vs. Mahadev
Appa Rao and others (2010) 7 SCC 678.
Accordingly submitted by the Standing
Counsel that present appeal be allowed.

11. Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
writ
petitioners/respondents defend the order
dated 19.03.2010 submits that both the
petitioners who belong to Backward caste
and being fully eligible and qualified,
have been duly selected for the post of
Veternary Pharmacist and their roll
numbers also appear in the final select list
of Backward caste candidates at serial no.
3 and 6, further the schedule which has
taken place as well as the merit list
published on the basis of the same does
not
suffer
with
any
illegality,
so
justification on the part of official
respondents/appellants
to
cancel
the
selection or the select list, the said action
is in contravention of the law as laid down
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
R.S. Mittal Versus Union of India,
reported in 1995 SCC (L & S) page 791
para 10 wherein it has been clearly held
that it is no doubt that a person on the
select panel has no vested right to be
appointed to the post for which he has
been selected but at the same time the
appointing authority cannot ignore the
select panel or decline to make the
appointment on its whims and Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that when a
person has been selected by the selection
board and there is a vacancy which can be
offered to him, keeping in view his merit
position, then, ordinarily, there is no
justification
to
ignore
him
for
appointment. There has to be a justifiable
reason to decline to appoint a person who
is on the select panel, so, present special
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. Selection has always been
considered as an administrative function
and
the
administrative
authority
is
regarded as the best judge for it. It is the
administrative authority that carries out
the
policy
of
the
State.
Public
appointments are made to suit the
administrator's purpose by appointing
those he considers the best among the
available candidates. As long as the
function of such authority is within the
3 All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another
1047
law, courts will be slow to interfere;
rather it has no business to interfere.
Court also does not function as an
appellate forum in selection matters.

13. It is settled law that by such
selection, an empanelled candidate does
not acquire any right of appointment to a
post. The administration is free either to
accept or reject the recommendations of
Service Commissions. A select-list does
not, thus, give right to selectees to
appointment. It is, in fact, a list of
candidates who could be immediately
appointed. Selection, therefore, does not
ensure appointment as there may be
unpredictable happenings, one such is
imposition of an economic ban in
recruitments, other is abolition of a
vacancy,
another
is
return
of
a
deputationist, and so on.

14. Although mere inclusion of a
person's name in the select list does not
confer
any
right
on
him
to
get
appointment and therefore no mandamus
would lie in his favor, but still a candidate
have the right to challenge administrative
orders and, if administrative authority
takes a decision and the reasons for such
decision are erroneous then such a
decision can be interfered with by a court
of law and if any State action was not
above broad, the Courts did not hesitate to
interfere and placed the administration on
the right keel.

15. In the case of Jatinder Kumar
Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1850
Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as
under:-

"Government
must
except
recommendation of the Commission. If,
however, the vacancy is to be filled in, the
Government has to make appointment
strictly according to the order of merit as
recommended by the Public Service
Commission. It cannot disturb the order
of merit according to its own sweet-will
except for other good reasons, viz., bad
conduct or character. The Government
cannot appoint a person whose name does
not appear in the list. However, it is open
to the Government to decide how many
appointments will be made. The process
for
selection
for
the
purpose
of
recruitment against anticipated vacancies
does not create a right to be appointed to
the post which can be enforced by a
Mandamus."

16.

In
Union
Territory
of
Chandigarh Vs. Dilbag Singh, 1993 (1)
SCC 1 "when a select list is cancelled the
selectees are not entitled to an opportunity
of hearing before cancellation. The Court
though
accepted
that
the
selected
candidates
have
a
"legitimate
expectation", it held that they have no
idefeasible right to be appointed in
absence of any rule to that effect. But, the
decision/action by executives must be
non-arbitrary
and
bona
fide.
The
cancellation of the select list by the
administration, on finding the list to be
dubious, having been prepared in unfair
and injudicous manner, was held bona
fide and made for valid reasons".

17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Munna Roy Vs. Union of
India, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1098, denied
administration the power to cancel the
panel and ordered appointment of the
applicant. In that case, the appellant
applied for the advertised post as she had
the requisite qualification. She became
successful in the written test as well as in
viva
voce.
The
list
of
successful
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
candidates included her name. However,
the select list was cancelled without even
informing the appellant on the ground that
though
the
minimum
qualification
required was matriculate, she was a
graduate; and thus dubious method was
adopted
for
being
selected.
The
cancellation was challenged before the
Tribunal which allowed the petition. The
High Court however held in favor of the
appellant Union of India. When the matter
reached the Supreme Court, the Apex
Court observed :

"We really fail to understand that if a
candidate possess a qualification higher
than the required qualification and the
advertisement itself had prescribed the
same then how can the authority came to
the conclusion that selection has been
made by adopting a dubious method."

18. The Apex Court held that the
reasons for cancellation of the select panel
was not germane and ordered, that the
Tribunal order granting the benefit be
implemented.

19. In the case of East Coast
Railway and another Vs. Mahadev
Appa Rao and others (2010) 7 SCC 678,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in respect to
cancellation of recruitment process and
the power of judicial review on the
ground of arbitrariness after taking into
various judgments as rendered by Ho'ble
the Apex Court earlier held as under
(relevant portion reproduced):-

Para No. 26 - If a test is cancelled
just because some complaints against the
same
have
been
made
howsoever
frivolous, it may lead to a situation where
no selection process can be finalized as
those who fail to qualify can always make
a grievance against the test or its fairness.
What is important is that once a complaint
or
representation
is
received
the
competent authority applies its mind to
the same and records reasons why in its
opinion it is necessary to cancel the
examination in the interest of purity of the
selection process or with a view to
preventing injustice or prejudice to those
who have appeared in the same. That is
precisely what had happened in Dilbagh
Singh's case (supra). The examination
was cancelled upon an inquiry into the
allegations of unjust, arbitrary and
dubious selection list prepared by the
Selection Board in which the allegations
were found to be correct.

Para No. 28 - That is not, however,
the position in the instant case. The order
of cancellation passed by the competent
authority was not preceded even by a
prima
facie
satisfaction
about
the
correctness of the allegations made by the
unsuccessful candidates leave alone an
inquiry into the same. The minimum that
was expected of the authority was a due
and proper application of mind to the
allegations
made
before
it
and
formulation and recording of reasons in
support of the view that the competent
authority was taking.

Para No. 29 - There may be cases
where an enquiry may be called for into
the allegations, but there may also be
cases, where even on admitted facts or
facts verified from record or an enquiry
howsoever summary the same maybe, it is
possible for the competent authority to
take a decision, that there are good
reasons for making the order which the
authority eventually makes. But we find it
difficult to sustain an order that is neither
based on an enquiry nor even a prima
3 All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar Soni S/O Chhotey Lal and another
1049
facie view taken upon a due and proper
application of mind to the relevant facts.
Judged by that standard the order of
cancellation passed by the competent
authority
falls
short
of
the
legal
requirements and was rightly quashed by
the High Court.

Para No. 30 - We may hasten to add
that while application of mind to the
material available to the competent
authority is an essential pre-requisite for
the making of a valid order, that
requirement should not be confused with
the sufficiency of such material to support
any such order. Whether or not the
material placed before the competent
authority was in the instant case sufficient
to justify the decision taken by it, is not in
issue before us. That aspect may have
assumed importance only if the competent
authority was shown to have applied its
mind to whatever material was available
to it before cancelling the examination.
Since application of mind as a thresh-hold
requirement
for
a
valid
order
is
conspicuous by its absence the question
whether the decision was reasonable
having regard to the material before the
authority
is
rendered
academic.
Sufficiency or otherwise of the material
and so also its admissibility to support a
decision the validity whereof is being
judicially reviewed may even otherwise
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. No hard and fast rule can be
formulated in that regard nor do we
propose to do so in this case."

20. In the instant case, from the
material on record, it clearly established
that Dy. Director Animal Husbandry,
Circle Faizabad, District Faizabad without
waiting for the outcome of the enquiry
report, passed the order dated 29.11.1999
in
utter
haste
without
ascertaining
whether
the
irregularities
regarding
submission of forged game certificates
were identifiable or not. Further, the
impugned order is of a prior dated i.e.
29.11.1999 whereas the enquiry report is
of subsequent date i.e. 4.12.1999. In the
inquiry also, the Inquiry Officer did not
find any irregularity or any favoritism etc.
and he could only point out that one
candidate Inderjeet had attached some
forged
certificate
regarding
sports.
However, the facts still remain that the
above Inderjeet neither appeared in the
written test nor in the interview and he
has also not been selected. The above
alleged irregularity in any way cannot be
held to be a valid ground for cancelling of
the selection in question that too from the
stage of interview and directing to hold a
fresh interview.

21. Further, from the perusal of the
order
dated
29.11.1999
passed
by
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad which is annexed as Annexure
No. 4 to the special appeal reveals that the
same is a non-speaking order, no reason
whatsoever has been assigned by the said
authority to cancel the interview which
has been already held and directed for
holding a fresh interview for the purpose
of appointment on the post in question is
anorder which is arbitrary in nature, thus
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India as well as to the principle of
Natural
Justice
in
Breen
Vs.
Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in
1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the
giving
of
reasons
is
one
of
the
fundamentals of good administration. In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs.
Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120
(NIRC) it was observed that "failure to
give reasons amounts to denial of justice.
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Reasons are live links between the mind
of the decision taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at".

22. Reasons substitute subjectivity
by objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be
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 of the
later before the 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 worlds, a speaking out, the
inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx'
is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance.

23. For the foregoing reasons, we
are of the considered opinion that there is
neither illegality nor infirmity in the
impugned order dated 19.03.2010 passed
by learned Single Judge.

24. Thus, present appeal lacks merit
and is dismissed.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Second Appeal No. - 781 of 2011

Nagar Palika Parishad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Tehsildar, Thakurdwar, Moradabad

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.K. Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

Code of Civil Procedure-Section-102Second Appeal-suit for injunction-from
realization of Property Tax-to the tone of
Rs. 11006.07/-decreed by first Appellate
Court-No Second Appeal for valuation of
Rs.
25000/-lie-held-Second
Appeal
barred by Section 102-not maintainable.

Held: Para 11

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the
present second appeal arises out of a
suit concerning recovery of money of
value less than Rs.25,000/- and as such
it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. Heard Sri J.K. Khanna, learned
counsel for the defendant-appellant and
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel
appearing for plaintiff-respondents No.1
to 3.

2. Plaintiffs instituted Original Suit
No. 13 of 1994 for permanent injunction
against the defendant Nagar Palika
Parishad and the Tehsildar restraining
them by a decree of permanent injunction