Judgment/Order:
Reasoned order – Non-assigning of reasons – Effect of – Held: 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 – In the absence thereof, it is not possible to know as to what led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion – On facts, the High Court while passing the impugned order had only issued the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State to give some reliefs to the writ petitioner without recording any reason, thus, the order not legally sustainable and set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 10][1087-D, E]
1.2 The impugned order is an unreasoned order. The High Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined by the tribunal. The order impugned in this appeal suffers from error, because the High Court while passing the impugned order had only issued the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State to give some reliefs to the writ petitioner-respondent without recording any reason. Therefore, such order is not legally sustainable and is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, in accordance with law. [Paras 11-13][1087-F-H]
State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981) 4 SCC 129 ; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222 : [1987] 2 SCR 220 ; State of U.P. v. Battan & Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607 ; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519 : [2003]
4 Suppl. SCR 208 ; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 : [2004] 2 SCR 68 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.