Partly allowed

Suresh Chand Gupta v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2023CW/14026/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order cancelling land regularization issued by the Municipal Corporation. Finding the order unreasoned and lacking findings on the petitioner's explanation, the Court held it violated natural justice and directed a fresh speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.06.2008 is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order.

Suresh Chand Gupta Vs State of Raj… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14026/2008

¶4

Suresh Chand Gupta s/o Shri Phool Chand Gupta, aged about 57 years, r/o Opp. Jain Mandir Kethuni Pol Kota

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through Deputy Secretary, Director Local Self Body Deptt. Rajasthan Jaipur

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Office of Municipal Council Rampura Zone, Distt. Kota, Rajasthan.

¶9

Commissioner, Office of Regional Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rampura Zone, Kota

¶10

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Regional Office, Kota

¶11

…..Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

21/07/2023

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13.06.2008 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rampura Zone, Kota, whereby the conditional regularization of the land which was in his favour was cancelled.

¶17

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was having possession of the land measuring 12x6 sq. yards (shop) located in Old Sabji Mandi, where he is running a cloth store. In view of the Notification

¶18

(2 of 7) [CW-14026/2008]

¶19

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

¶20

dated 24.12.2001 issued by the Director, Local Self Department, Settlement Committees namely; Local Settlement Committee and State Level Settlement Committee were constituted for making allotment of shops and open lands. The petitioner submitted his claim before the Local Settlement Committee for allotment of the shop which was in his possession. The said Committee vide recommendation dated 14.06.2002 proposed to make allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 04.08.2003 the land of shop was recommended to be regularized on a lease of 99 years in favour of the petitioner. In view of the said recommendation, the petitioner deposited the requisite amount with the respondents.

¶21

The respondents issued a notice dated 10.06.2008 for cancellation of the allotment / regularization of the shop to which the submitted his explanation /reply on 12.06.2008. The respondents vide order dated 13.06.2008 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner observing that the explanation / reply submitted by him is not satisfactory.

¶22

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having possession over the land in question on recommendations of the Committees constituted under the Notification issued by the State Government. Counsel submits that the land was regularized in favour of the petitioner on a lease of 99 years with certain conditions. Counsel

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

[CW-14026/2008]

(3 of 7)

submits that though the petitioner was making representations regularly to the respondents to issue a Patta in his favour for the land in question but the respondents in-stead of issuing a Patta in his favour proceeded for cancellation of the allotment/ regularization and order impugned was passed without assigning any reasons and findings on the explanation /reply submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the impugned order of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside being illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order under challenge has been passed after following the due process of law i.e. issuing notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation/reply and after consideration of the explanation/ reply submitted by him. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶29

On perusal of the documents on record for cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner, the respondents issued a notice on 10.06.2008 to which the petitioner submitted an explanation/ reply on 12.06.2008, which is there on record as Annex.7. The respondents issued the impugned order dated 13.06.2008 stating that the reply to the notice submitted by the petitioner is

[CW-14026/2008]

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

(4 of 7)

not found satisfactory. The petitioner in the reply to the notice has stated that he is in possession over the land in question since long and the recommendations for regularization/ allotment was also made by the Committee constituted under the Notification issued by the State Government. The respondents have not assigned any reasons or have given finings on the contents of the reply to the notice.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 407, in paras 10 and 11 has observed as under:-

¶35

“10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003(11) SCC 519).

¶36

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. inBreen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120(NIRC) 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 of 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

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

[CW-14026/2008]

(5 of 7)

that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling 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.”

¶41

It is a well settled law that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration and failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The reasoned decision is essential in order that, where there is a right of appeal, the applicant can assess whether he has good grounds of appeal and know the case he will have to meet if he decides to appeal. If the administrative orders are passed without giving reasons, the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officer may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But, if reasons for an order are given, it will be an effective restraint on such abuse, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant considerations, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard.

¶42

The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

(6 of 7)

[CW-14026/2008]

search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a wellknown principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice.

¶47

The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair-play in action.” Requirement about recording of reasons for its decisions 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 decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the opinion that the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court deems proper to hold that the impugned order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota, is in

[2023:RJ-JP:14994]

(7 of 7)

[CW-14026/2008]

violation of principles of natural justice being an unreasoned and non-speaking order as it does not disclose any reasons and findings in respect of the contents of the reply submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶52

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.08.2008 is quashed and set aside.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶54

Since the main petition has been disposed of, the pending application applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶55

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶56

SharmaNK-Dy.Registrar-79

Suresh Chand Gupta v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand Gupta v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

M/S Chandana Marble Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Mines Departmentors

Harinarayan Vs Narayan and Ors.

Banna Ram (Since Deceased) Vs Board of Revenue Rajasthan

Dr Pyare Lal and Ors. Vs Harish Kumar and Ors.

M/S Ikramuddin Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sanju Jangir Vs U O R and Ors.