Remanded

MD Samiullah v. Collectariate

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2018WPC/4252/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the impugned revisional order of the Divisional Commissioner was a non-speaking cryptic order violating principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's precedent in Daya Ram v. Raghunath. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter for a fresh speaking order after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner is set aside and matter remanded back to respondent no.2 with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportuni

MD Samiullah Vs Collectariate — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C). No. 4252 of 2012

¶3

Md. Samiullah S/o Late Md. Mohiuddin resident of Church road, P.O & P.S. – Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand

¶5

Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Commissioner Office, Near Butchery, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, Distt: - Ranchi 3. Dy. Commissioner, Office of the Dy. Commissioner, Near Kutchery, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, Distt: - Ranchi

¶6

Special Officer, Food & Supply division, Supply office, P.O. & P.S. – Kutchery, Distt:- Ranchi … … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Apurv, A.C. to G.A.

¶10

¶11

07/04.09.2018 Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶12

Heard Mr. Apurv, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶13

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶14

“(i) to quash the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by respondent no.4 whereby petitioner’s licence for price shop bearing No.36/92 has been cancelled on the basis of the complain received by the consumers without holding any proper enquiry.

¶15

(ii) Petitioner further prays for quashing of the appellate order dated 15.9.10 passed in PDS appear No.17R15/ 210-11 passed by respondent no.3 affirming the order of cancellation of respondent no.4.

¶16

(iii) Petitioner further prays for quashing of the revisional order dated 27.6.12 in Misc. Appeal No.92/10 whereby the order of appellate authority has been affirmed.

¶17

¶18

(iv) Petitioner further prays for direction upon the concerned respondents to re-validate the licence no.36/92 in favour of the petitioner.”

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the impugned revisional order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Misc. Appeal No.92/2010 is a non-speaking cryptic order and accordingly the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶20

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also could not defend the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 on the aforesaid point which has been raised by the petitioner.

¶21

The impugned order dated 27.06.2012 reads as follows: “ Heard both the parties and perused the petition, order passed by learned Dy. Commissioner dated 15.09.2010 in P.D.S. Case No.17R15/2010-2011, appellate court’s record as well as written arguments submitted by learned lawyer for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Dy. Commissioner. Hence the petition is rejected and learned Dy. Commissioner’s order is upheld.”

¶22

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds from the perusal of the aforesaid order itself, that the matter was heard and the written arguments were also submitted but there is no discussion on what was the argument advanced by the petitioner and what written arguments were filed before the said authority. In the impugned order after recording that the parties were heard and written arguments were filed, it has been simply stated that “ I Find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Dy. Commissioner ”.

¶23

Thus this court finds that the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner is a non-

¶24

¶25

speaking cryptic order which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶26

It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in judgement reported in ( 2007) 11 SCC 241 (Daya Ram v. Raghunath) as follows:-

¶27

“8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.

¶28

9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: (All ER p. 1154h) “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 reasons 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 order. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.”

¶29

Considering the aforesaid Judgement passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and having found that the impugned order passed by the learned commissioner as non-speaking cryptic order, the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi

¶30

¶31

Misc. Appeal No.92/2010 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering the materials on record within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Saurav /

MD Samiullah v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Samiullah v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs Bokaro Steel Plant S.A.I.L.

Baikunth Kalindi Alias Baikunth Dome Vs Water Resources Department

Amar Kumar Mandal Vs B.M.,New India Insurance Co.Lt

Malti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Ranchi

Ram Charitar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dil Muhammad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.