The brief facts are that the petitioner is Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and was plying vehicles at relevant time in territory of State of Rajasthan. Demand notices dated 13.03.2002 creating demand of Rs.5,22,314/- and 1,87,477/- were issued to the petitioner. Demand notices were challenged in SBCWP No.3070/2002 and connected matters. The writ petitions were disposed of on 28.07.2023. Operational part of the order is quoted below:-

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

[2024:RJ-JP:14048-DB]

¶20

[CW-2369/2007]

¶21

“Be that as it may, all these writ petitions are disposed of in the terms that interim relief granted by this Court on 21.05.2002 shall continue for further three months. In the meanwhile the respondent No.2 is directed to examine the matter and in case it is found that the assessment of the tax has not been made for period in dispute he is to make the assessment thereof after hearing the petitioner Corporation. Where the assessment orders are already made, the copies thereof be given to the petitioner Corporation and the petitioner Corporation is free to file appeal provided under the relevant Act or Rules against the same before appropriate appellate authority. The appellate authority then shall consider the question of stay of demand of tax independently without having been influence by this indulgence granted by this court.

¶22

Looking to the facts that the demand of tax which is alleged to be due is made against the State own Road Transport Corporation i.e. the petitioner by the Authorities of another State, it is expected the respondent No.2 and the representatives of the writ petitioner may sit together and resolve this dispute.

¶23

These writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. As a result of the disposal of these writ petitions, the stay applications filed there with also stand disposed of.

¶24

In the fact of this case there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶25

Thereafter, on issuance of fresh demand notices, SBCWP No.1579/2005 filed by the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to challenge fresh demand notices before appropriate forum. The petitioner filed petition under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1951 challenging demand notice dated

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:14048-DB]

¶27

[CW-2369/2007]

¶28

(3 of 5)

¶29

17.02.2005 creating demand of Rs.52,85,479/-. On dismissal of the petition, the writ was filed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand created is illegal. It is further argued that the impugned order is non-speaking.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.

¶33

Ltd. and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 held as under:

¶34

“a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶35

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶36

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.

¶37

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶38

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶39

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as serving principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶40

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

¶41

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.

¶42

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver

¶43

(4 of 5)

¶44

[2024:RJ-JP:14048-DB]

¶45

[CW-2369/2007]

¶46

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.

¶47

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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”.

¶53

The impugned order is bereft of reasons. The petition was rejected by stating that the demand created is absolutely in consonance with the provisions of law. The ground raised by the petitioner were not dealt with.

¶54