Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2020WPC/21/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a one-line order rejecting a spot inspection application for property without any reasons. The High Court set aside the non-speaking order as arbitrary and unsustainable, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring reasoned decisions from quasi-judicial and administrative authorities. The matter was remitted for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting spot inspection application set aside; matter remitted to respondent no.3 for fresh order.

Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 21 of 2020

¶5

Jitendra Kumar Soni S/o Late Shrawan Kumar Soni, Aged About 50 Years, R/o In Front Of Maya Dubey Nursing Home, Gondpara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Nazul Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Paddumlal Patanwar, Revenue Inspector, Nazul Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Mayank Shukla, Revenue Inspector, Nazul Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6. Pratigya Rahi, Revenue Inspector, Nazul Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7. Ravikant Mishra S/o Late Krishna Bihari Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

8. Shashikant Mishra S/o Late Krishna Bihari Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

9. Rashmikant Mishra S/o Late Krishna Bihari Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

10. Laxmidevi Mishra Wd/o Late Shrikant Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

¶19

11. Dhiraj Mishra S/o Late Shrikant Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocates For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board

¶23

07.01.2020

¶24

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 18.11.2019 whereby the application put forth by the petitioner for spot inspection and measurement of the property has been rejected.

¶25

2. It would be relevant at this juncture to reproduce the impugned order:

¶26

“18.11.19

¶27

01 izdj.k izLrqrA

¶28

02 vkosnd okLrs vf/koDrk Jh latho 'kekZ mifLFkrA

¶29

03 vukosnd okLrs Jh v;ks/;k izlkn nqcs vf/koDrk mifLFkrA

¶30

04 vukosnd vf/koDrk }kjk lwph vuqlkj nLrkost izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls izdj.k es layXu fd;k x;kA

¶31

05 mHk;i{k vf/koDrkx.k }kjk ekSf[kd rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;kA

¶32

06 izdj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶33

3. A plain perusal of the aforesaid order would itself show that the respondent no.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner by a one line order without giving any reason and justification for rejection of the same nor is there any application of mind reflected while rejecting the application.

¶34

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Committee was constituted for

¶35

¶36

spot inspection of the property as is reflected from Annexure P-4 dated 07.11.2019 and Annexure P-5 is a document dated 08.11.2019 whereby the Revenue Inspector intimated the petitioner to remain present at the spot at the time of inspection which was to be held on 15.11.2019 at 2 pm. According to the petitioner, he was present at the spot on the said date and given time but no inspection as such was conducted and thereafter the impugned order has abruptly been passed.

¶37

5. This Court at the outset finds that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 to be a total non speaking order without giving any justification and reason for rejecting the application.

¶38

6. True it is that the impugned order is an appealable order but the fact is that when the impugned order does not give any reason or justification or shows application of mind, the question of relegating the petitioner for appeal to the appellate authority is futile. It is by now well settled proposition of law that any order passed on the judicial side or even if it is passed on the administrative side, the same has to be a reasoned and speaking order.

¶39

7. The Supreme Court always has opined that the order passed by Quasi Judicial authority or even the administrative authority affecting rights of the parties must be a speaking order. The question regarding recording of reasons, its importance and necessity came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others (reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 ) wherein the Supreme Court has extensively and elaborately dealt with the issue of need of giving reasons.

¶40

¶41

8. Similarly, in case of East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others with K. Surekha Vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao and Others (reported in 2010(7)SCC 678), the Supreme Court in very categorical terms has held that Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order.

¶42

9. Likewise, again in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (reported in 2010(4)SCC 785), the Supreme Court has held that “recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighted with the authority in rejecting him claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and

¶43

¶44

appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that order”.

¶45

10. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands, the impugned order, so far as the order sheet dated 18.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is concerned, is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the respondent no.3 for reconsidering the application of the petitioner and on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, shall pass a fresh order.

¶46

11. The writ petition stands allowed.

¶47

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶48

Khatai

Jitendra Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nmdc Limited Vs Union of India

Gangadhar Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Satyabhama Patel Vs Shri G. R. Markam

Devashish Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devcharan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Om Prakash Sahare Vs Dr. R. K. Mandavi Principal Government Lal Chakradhar Shah College