The Court allowed the writ petition challenging an unreasoned order rejecting interim relief in externment proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, quashing the order and remanding the matter for a fresh reasoned decision.
Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to pass fresh reasoned order within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10044 of 2025
Mohd. Aafaq
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And 5 Others
.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by O.P. No. 02 in Appeal Case No.3453/2025 (Mohd. Aafaq Vs State of U.P.), Computerized Case No. C-202504000003453 pending before the court of Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya filed under section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by O.P. No. 03 in Case No. 1485/2024 (State of U.P. Vs Mohd. Aafaq) as contained in Annexure No. 01 to this petition.
It is also prayed that the operation and implementation of orders dated 07.11.2025 passed by O.P. No. 02 in Appeal Case No. 3453/2025 as well as order dated 11.04.2025 passed by O.P. No. 03 in Case No. 1485/2024 under section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act may kindly be stayed during the pendency of appeal before the Commissioner Ayodhya Range Ayodhya."
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
2
7. Learned AGA opposed the instant petition.
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
3
AIR 1981 SC 1915 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable."
"8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C) "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."
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..."
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
4
'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.'
"Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
5
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons? is process. not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency In decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor ((1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain ((1994) 19 EHRR 553) EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, ? adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions?.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ?due process?.""
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision."
"31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
6
sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].
32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].
33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial 25order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."
"8. ?.It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus :
"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 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;......."
A482 No. 10044 of 2025
7
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
December 8, 2025
ML/-
Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate order under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act was sustainable given its lack of reasons?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankar Ji Shukla vs. Ayukt, Allahabad MandalReferred
Shankar Ji Shukla vs. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and others, 2004 SCC OnLine All 133 · Who else cites this
Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey vs. State of U.P.Referred
Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 16.12.2010 [Writ Petition No. 5905 (MS) of 2010]
Wahid @ Abdul Wahid vs. State of U.P.Referred
Wahid @ Abdul Wahid vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others decided on 02.09.2024 (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024)
Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of BiharReferred
Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, (1984) 3 SCC 14 · Who else cites this
Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. UnionReferred
Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) ALLER 1148
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. CrabtreeReferred
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC)
Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal KapoorReferred
Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 · Who else cites this
Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.Referred
Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 · Who else cites this
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of IndiaReferred
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 · Who else cites this
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of BiharReferred
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa v. Dhaniram LuharReferred
State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 · Who else cites this
Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.Referred
Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad JainReferred
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008)15 SSC 711
Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed KhanReferred
Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.Referred
Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 · Who else cites this
Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik SamityReferred
The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 · Who else cites this
Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CustomsReferred
Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Aafaq
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And 5 Others
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
