Writ appeal against a judgment setting aside the Commissioner of Land Revenue's order in a land assignment dispute on the ground that it was non-speaking. The High Court held that the order contained no reasons and dismissed the appeal, upholding the direction to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the parties.
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.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WA NO. 1343 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8201/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
T.V.RAJEEVAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ALAMI, RESIDING AT GURUPURAM, ERIYA P.O. BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 531. BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S. MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 H.KRISHNA BHAT, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. SUBRAYA BHATT, RESIDING AT GURUPURAM ERIYA P.O., BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 531. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KANHANDGAD, P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 315. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 315. 5 K. KORAN, S/O. RAVUNNI, RESIDING AT KUNDAMKUZHI, PULLUR P.O. BELUR VILLAGE , HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 531. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR GP FOR R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:2:-
“C.R”
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 8201 of 2010 dated 23.07.2021, setting aside Ext. P14 order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 28.01.2010, and further directions, instant writ appeal is filed.
“2. After a series of litigation, 1st respondent passed Ext.P14 order. Short point raised by the petitioner before this Court is that, as per Ext.P14 order, the Commissioner of Land Revenue disposed a revision by a non speaking order in the following manner:
“The eligibility of Sri.Koran stands unquestioned and the revision petition is allowed.”
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:3:-
four acres of land of his own, and is not eligible for assignment. This is contradictory to Ext.P11. I don’t want to make any observation about the merit of the case. I am not satisfied the way in which the 1st respondent passed Ext.P14 order. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner and the contesting respondents. The petitioner and the contesting respondents can raise all their submissions before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent will reconsider the matter in accordance to law. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit. The 1st respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, but only after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties. A speaking order is necessary.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
contended that Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No. 1, has considered the rival submissions of the parties
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:4:-
to the proceedings, and passed a detailed order, and further contended that writ court erred in interfering with the same on the grounds, inter alia , that it is non-speaking order, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions for the reason that, after narrating the pleadings made in the revision petition filed by Mr. T. V. Rajeevan, against the proceedings in D.Dis.1542/04/F dated 09.11.2006 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, and the contentions, the Commissioner of Land Revenue has ordered thus:
“The matter came up for hearing on 23/12/09. The learned consels for the petitioner, the first respondent and the second respondent were present at the time of hearing. The second respondent, who is the original assignee of the said land was absent.
The petitioner, Sri Rajeveen had purchased the said land from the second respondent, Sri.Koran on 1993. The first respondent, Srl.Krishna Bhat had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, as directed in judgment dated 07/02/05 and the subsequent order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the merits of the case. The Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Tahsildar, Hosdurg Taluk to complete the LA proceedings only. The Sub Collector has stated in his report to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, that the first respondent herein, Sri.Krishna Bhat is not eligible for the assignment and
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:5:-
hence the assignment made in favour of Sri.Koran may be confirmed.
The Junior Superintendent at the Taluk Office, Hosdurg Taluk, Sri.Ramachandran was present for the hearing and it is submitted that, the second respondent Sri.Koran is seen eligible for the said assign while, the first respondent Sri.Krishana Bhat has 4 acres of land of his own, and is not eligible for the assignment.”
ORDER
The eligibility of Sri. Koran stands unquestioned and the revision petition is allowed.
Sd/-
counsel for the appellant and the material on record, we are of the view that as rightly declared by the writ court, Exhibit-P14 proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 28.01.2010, cannot be said to be a speaking order, containing reasons, for concluding the eligibility of Mr. Koran.
that reasons are the heartbeat of any decision. Reference can be made to a few decisions:
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:6:-
(i) In Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) [(1969) 3 SCC 868], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"9. In a later judgment in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1606), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in effect overruled the judgment of the majority in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1966 SC 671). The Court held that the decisions of tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and of appellate powers of this Court under Article 136. The High Court and this Court would be placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given and the revision is dismissed by the use of the single word "rejected" or "dismissed". The Court in that case held that the order of the Central Government in appeal, did not set out any reasons of its own and on that account set aside that order. In our view, the majority judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. case has been overruled by this Court in Bhagat Raja case.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:7:-
non-judicial authority exercises judicial functions, is obvious. When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds: one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power."
(ii) In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P , (AIR 1970 SC 1302), while dealing with U.P. Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order under which the license was cancelled, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such an order of cancellation is quasi-judicial and must be a speaking one. The Apex Court further held that merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough and further pointed out where the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reason is even greater. The learned Judges held that the recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim ensures that the decision is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy but was arrived at after considering the relevant law and that the decision was just. (See SCC p.768, para 7: AIR p. 1304, para 7).
(iii) In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers Union , (AIR 1973 SC 2758), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering an award under Section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in support of conclusions in the Award. The Court held that the very requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:8:-
just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong (See SCC pp.320-21, para 5 : AIR p. 2761, para 5).
(iv) In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor , (AIR 1974 SC 87), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of selection under Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations held that the expression "reasons for the proposed supersession" should not be mere rubberstamp reasons. 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 (See SCC pp.85354,paras 27-28: AIR pp.97-98, paras 27-28).
(v) In Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India [(1976) 2 SCC 981], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6........If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:9:-
be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem , a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law......"
(vi) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (AIR 1978 SC 597), which is a decision of great jurisprudence significance in our Constitutional law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a concurring but different opinion, held that an order impounding a passport is a quasi-judicial decision (SCC p.311, Para 34,: AIR p. 612, para 34). The the Hon'ble Apex Court also held, when an administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on fundamental rights is taken, the authorities must see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done as well. This principle would obviously demand disclosure of reasons for the decision. Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) in a concurring but a separate opinion, also held that refusal to disclose reasons for impounding a passport is an exercise of an exceptional nature and is to be done very sparingly and only when it is fully justified by the exigencies of an uncommon situation. The learned Judge further held that law cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to keep the reasons away from judicial scrutiny. (See SCC p.317, para 39: AIR p.613, para 39).
(vii) In Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala , (AIR 1979 SC 1918), V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held that the functioning of the Board was quasi-judicial in character. One of the attributes of quasi- judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is following the principles of natural justice. Learned Judge held that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (See SCC p.788, para 14 : AIR p. 1922, para 14).
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:10:-
(viii) In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab , [(1979) 2 SCC 368], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"18. ...... "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List.
xx xxxxx xxxxxx
(ix) In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in H.H. Shri. Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. , (AIR 1980 SC 1), while giving the majority judgment, Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. referred to (SCC p.658, para 29) Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97), where the principle in Latin runs as under:
"Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex"
The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that: (H.H. Shri. Swamiji case, SCC p.658, para 29)
"29. … reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself." (See AIR p.11, para 29)
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:11:-
(x) In Bombay Oil Industries (P). Ltd. v. Union of India , (AIR 1984 SC 160), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“While disposing of applications under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act the duty of the Government is to give reasons for its order. This court made it very clear that the faith of the people in administrative tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders. In saying so, this Court relied on its previous decisions in Capoor (supra) and Siemens Engineering (supra), discussed above.”
(xi) In Ram Chander v. Union of India , (AIR 1986 SC 1173), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the appellate provisions under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 condemned the mechanical way of dismissal of appeal in the context of requirement of Rule 22(2) of the aforesaid Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word "consider" occurring in Rule 22(2) must mean the Railway Board shall duly apply its mind and give reasons for its decision. The learned Judges held that the duty to give reason is an incident of the judicial process and emphasized that in discharging quasi-judicial functions the appellate authority must act in accordance with natural justice and give reasons for its decision (SCC pp.106-07, Para 4: AIR p. 1176, para 4).
(xii) In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. , [(1990) 3 SCC 280], a threeJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the present day set up judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day and the State has to justify its action in various field of public law. All these necessitate recording of reason for executive actions including the rejection of the highest offer. This Court held that disclosure of reasons in matters of such rejection provides an opportunity for an objective review both by
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:12:-
superior administrative heads and for judicial process and opined that such reasons should be communicated unless there are specific justification for not doing so (see SCC pp. 284-285, Para 10).
(xiii) In Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil corporation and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1031 , in paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"12. It is well settled that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power, must be informed by reason. In appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations of this Court in M/s. Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar , ( (1977) 3 S.C. 457: AIR 1977 SC 1496). It appears to us, at the outset, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-company IOC is an organ of the State or an instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution. The State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercises of power. Therefore, the action of State organ under Article 14 can be checked. See M/s. Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar at p. 462 (at SCC): (at p. 14991500 of AIR) (supra), but Article 14 of the Constitution cannot and has not been construed as a charter for judicial review of State action after the contract has been entered into, to call upon the State to account for its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. In a situation of this nature certain activities of the respondent company which constituted State under Article 12 of the Constitution may be in certain circumstances subject to Article 14 of the Constitution in entering or not entering into contracts and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant consideration, it depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular transaction whether hearing is necessary and reasons have to be stated. In case any right
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:13:-
conferred on the citizens which is sought to be interfered, such action is subject to Article 14 of the Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. Where there is arbitrariness in State action of this type of entering or not entering into contracts, Article 14 springs up and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the State executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, in such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a Governmental action even, in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasoned ableness, the same would be unreasonable. In this connection reference may be made to E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , (1974) 4 SCC 3: (AIR 1974 SC 555); Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (1978) 1 SCC 248: (AIR 1978 SC 597), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , (1981) 1 SCC 722: (AIR 1981 SC 487); R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489: (AIR 1979 SC 162) and also Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293: (AIR 1989 SC 1642). It appears to us that rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens in a situation like the present one. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into. a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the dealing as in the present case."
(xiv) In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594], a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:
"38. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action." As pointed out earlier the
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:14:-
requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decisionmaking. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that affect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject-matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would out-weight the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.
(xv) In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi [(1991) 2 SCC 716], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in domestic enquiry if the facts
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:15:-
are not in dispute non-recording of reason may not be violative of the principles of natural justice but where facts are disputed necessarily the authority or the enquiry officer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see SCC pp 738-739, para 22)
(xvi) In Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Others, (AIR 1993 SC 1407), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"46. ......Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21....."
(xvii) In M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited , [(1996) 3 SCC 119], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an award under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act and held that since the said award affects public interest, reasons must be recorded in the award. It was also held that such reasons are to be recorded so that it enables the High Court to exercise its power of judicial review on the validity of the award. (see SCC p 123, para 8).
(xviii) In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital , [AIR 2000 SC 3138], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a grievance under CP Act, held that the authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at conclusions based on reasons. This Court held that the said Act, being one of the benevolent pieces of legislation, is intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation as the said Act provides for an alternative mode for consumer justice by the process of a summary trial. The powers which are exercised are definitely quasijudicial in nature and in such a situation the conclusions must be
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:16:-
based on reasons and held that requirement of recording reasons is "too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasizing". (See SCC p.673 Para 11, AIR p. 3141 para 11 of the report).
(xix) In State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“6..........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 order not sustainable.”
Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors . [(2001) 10 SCC 607]. About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [AIR 1982 SC 1215] the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reason in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. , [1987CriLJ698]. Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:17:-
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 he 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 a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”
(xx) In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh and Ors. [2007 (4) SCALE 299], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“6. 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.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:18:-
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 a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.”
(xxi) In M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at paragraph 10, held as under:
"10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless."
(xxii) In Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 240], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering whether an Appellate Authority is required to record reasons while affirming an order of imposing penalty observed that an elaborate reasoning may not be necessary but it should not be understood to mean that even brief reasons are not required to be given in an order of affirmance. The observations are as under:
"9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case, it has been observed that:
"36. ............ The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:19:-
that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority."
(xxiii) In CCT v. Shukla & Bros. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. 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. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view.
*****
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:20:-
(xxiv) In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Suresh Chand Sharma [(2010) 6 SCC 555], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“14. In view of the above, the reasoning so given by the High Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. More so, the High Court is under an obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by a domestic tribunal. In case the judgment and order of the High Court is found not duly supported by reasons, the judgment itself stands vitiated. (Vide State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC 1215); State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607); Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.(AIR 2003 SC 4664); and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (AIR 2004 SC 1794).
“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.”
“Before we part with the case, we feel it necessary to indicate that non-reasoned conclusions by appellate Courts are not appropriate, more so, when views of the lower Court are differed from. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons may not be there. It is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heartbeat of every
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:21:-
conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless.”
(xxv) In The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 732], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“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 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
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:22:-
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 v. Dhaniram Luhar (AIR 2004 SC 1794); and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Ors . [(2004) 5 SCC 573].
(xxvi) In Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a catena of decisions on reasons, held as under:
“12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a sort of
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:23:-
demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:24:-
and directed the Company to register the transfer. However, in passing the said order, Government did not give any reason. The company challenged the said decision before this Court.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:25:-
xx xxx xxxxxx
“Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows that courts-martial must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the Army and Navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives.”
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:26:-
“...It is a corollary of the discretion conferred upon the board that it is their duty to set out their reasoning in sufficient form to show the principles on which they have proceeded. Adopting Lord Lane CJ's observations (in R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Khan (Mahmud) [1983] 2 All ER 420 at 423, (1983) QB 790 at 794-795), the reasons for the lower amount is not obvious. Mr. Cunningham is entitled to know, either expressly or inferentially stated, what it was to which the board were addressing their mind in arriving at their conclusion. It must be obvious to the board that Mr. Cunningham is left with a burning sense of grievance. They should be sensitive to the fact that he is left with a real feeling of injustice, that having been found to have been unfairly dismissed, he has been deprived of his just desserts (as he sees them).
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:27:-
“...thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, and without wishing to establish any precedent whatsoever, I am prepared to spell out an obligation on this board to give succinct reasons, if only to put the mind of Mr. Cunningham at rest. I would therefore allow this application.”
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:28:-
relied on the decisions of the U.S. Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation (1942) 87 Law Ed 626 and John T. Dunlop v. Walter Bachowski (1975) 44 Law Ed 377 in support of its opinion discussed above.
(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 decision maker 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 life blood 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
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:29:-
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.
(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 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 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of 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".
(xxvii) In Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Ors. [(2012)
8 SCC 148] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“33. It is a settled legal proposition that not only
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:30:-
administrative order, 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 order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (AIR 2004 SC 1794); State of Uttaranchal and Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi (AIR 2008 SC 2026); T he Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 1285); and Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336].”
(xxviii) In Dr. Anurika Vaish v. Union of India & Ors., [2016 (1) UPLBEC 803], a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed as under:
"139. While recording reasons for decisions in the procedure for Statutory Tribunals, the learned authors further say that reasons should form part of the decision. The very purpose of such recording of reason is to show a person that he is receiving justice. The facts for determination have to be based on evidence and while recording reasons this has to
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:31:-
be discussed. The statement of reasons must show that the point at issue has been considered between the parties and to support it by evidence for a conclusion. Where there is a conflict of evidence, the decision making authority ought to state its findings.
(xxix) In Leelakumari v. Shikha [2018 (3) KLT 556], a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“14. It is incumbent upon the courts to pass speaking and reasoned orders. Giving reasons for conclusions is an essential element of administration of justice. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:32:-
actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached (See Krishna Swami v. Union of India [1992 (2) KLT OnLine 1004 (SC)]: AIR 1993 SC 1407). Judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in them. While deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation of the court to record reasons. Giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justicedelivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. Recording of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter by a court. It is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of the exercise undertaken. Reasons shall be given for reaching a conclusion so as to reflect application of mind by the court. Reason introduces clarity in an order. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. Absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/ unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Reasons ensure transparency and fairness in decision making (See Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012 (3) KLT SN 73 (C. No. 79) SC : (2012) 8 SCC 148).”
(xxx) In Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi (D) and Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 744], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“9. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/ Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/ revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See- State of Maharashtra v.
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:33:-
Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan , (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors ., (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. , (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. , (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar , (2004) 5 SCC 568).”
(xxxi) In KJS Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Odisha and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 26973, 27751, 27731, 27672, 28141, 28004, 29112 and 29311 of 2020, dated 22.12.2020 , High Court of Orissa held as under:
“64. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla & Brothers , [(2010) 4 SCC 785] held that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.
"24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:34:-
of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dis-satisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/ appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever precise they may be."
WA: 1343 of 2021
-:35:-
stated supra , we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant
writ appeal warranting interference.
Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Eb
///true copy/// P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue disposing of the revision was a speaking order containing reasons for its conclusion?
Whether the writ court was justified in setting aside that order as non-speaking and directing fresh consideration?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI)Relied on¶49
(1969) 3 SCC 868 · Who else cites this
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.Relied on¶56
AIR 1970 SC 1302 · Who else cites this
Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers UnionRelied on¶57
AIR 1973 SC 2758 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Mohan Lal CapoorRelied on¶61
AIR 1974 SC 87 · Who else cites this
Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶62
(1976) 2 SCC 981 · Who else cites this
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶67
AIR 1978 SC 597 · Who else cites this
Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of KeralaRelied on¶68
AIR 1979 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of PunjabRelied on¶71
(1979) 2 SCC 368 · Who else cites this
Ram Chander v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶83
AIR 1986 SC 1173 · Who else cites this
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶93
(1990) 4 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. GandhiRelied on¶99
(1991) 2 SCC 716 · Who else cites this
Krishna Swami v. Union of India & OthersRelied on¶103
AIR 1993 SC 1407 · Who else cites this
Charan Singh v. Healing Touch HospitalRelied on¶106
AIR 2000 SC 3138 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa v. Dhaniram LuharRelied on¶110
(2004) 5 SCC 568 · Who else cites this
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh and Ors.Relied on¶119
2007 (4) SCALE 299
CCT v. Shukla & Bros.Relied on¶134
(2010) 4 SCC 785 · Who else cites this
Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and OthersRelied on¶160
(2010) 9 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Union of India (UOI) v. Ibrahim Uddin and Ors.Relied on¶217
(2012) 8 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
Dr. Anurika Vaish v. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶223
2016 (1) UPLBEC 803
Leelakumari v. ShikhaRelied on¶230
2018 (3) KLT 556
Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi (D) and Ors.Relied on¶235
(2019) 5 SCC 744 · Who else cites this
KJS Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Odisha and Ors.Relied on¶240
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 26973, 27751, 27731, 27672, 28141, 28004, 29112 and 29311 of 2020, dated 22.12.2020
T.V. Rajeevan
H. Krishna Bhat
The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod
The Tahsildar, Hosdurg, Kasaragod District
K. Koran
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
