TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on petition. The revision Petition is dismissed." 4. In so far as the case of the builder is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said Commission cannot, considering the way it is structured, dismiss the revision petition by refusing to give any reasons and by just affirming the order of the State Commission. 5. The said Commission has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter CP Act) as follows : "2(k) "National Commission" means the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established under clause (c) of Section 9;" 6. Under Section 9(c) of CP Act, the said Commission has been established by the Central Government by a notification. 7. The composition of the said Commission has been provided under Section 20 of the CP Act and wherefrom it is clear that the said Commission is a high-powered adjudicating forum headed by a sitting or a retired judge of the Supreme Court. 8. Section 21 of the CP Act provides for the jurisdiction of the said Commission. 9. In order to appreciate the questions involved in this case, the provision relating to jurisdiction of the said Commission is set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. 13. Under Section 13(5) of CP Act, every proceeding of the said Commission will be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the said Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. The above provisions make it clear that the said Commission has the trappings of a Civil Court and is a high-powered quasi-judicial forum for deciding lis between the parties. 15. 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 demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 21. Even though in Harinagar (supra) the decision was administrative, this Court insisted on the requirement of recording reason and further held that in exercising appellate powers, the Central Government acted as a tribunal in exercising judicial powers of the State and such exercise is subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court. Such powers, this Court held, cannot be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of the order (Para 23, page 1678-79). 22. Again in the case of Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1606, the Constitution Bench of this Court examined the question whether the Central Government was bound to pass a speaking order while dismissing a revision and confirming the order of the State Government in the context of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and having regard to the provision of Rule 55 of Mineral and Concessions Rules. The Constitution Bench held that in exercising its power of revision under the aforesaid Rule the Central Government acts in a quasi-judicial capacity (See para 8 page 1610). Where the State Government gives a number of reasons some of w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a 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 para 5 page 2761). 26. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, AIR 1974 SC 87, this Court while dealing with the question of selection under Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion Regulation) held that the expression "reasons for the proposed supersession" should not be mere rubber stamp 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 betw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the conclusions made (See para 14 page 1922). 32. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor (supra), held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra) to the extent that reasons "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions." (See para 18 page 377). 33. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1, while giving the majority judgment Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows : "Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex" 34. The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that : "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the Law itself." (See para 29 page 11) 35. In M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1984 SC 160, this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see para 22, pages 738-739). 39. In the case of M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 119, this 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 para 8, page 123). 40. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3138, a three-Judge Bench of this 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 sum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o common law duty of recording of reasons. In Marta Stefan v. General Medical Council, (1999) 1 WLR 1293, it has been held, "the established position of the common law is that there is no genera], duty imposed on our decision makers to record reasons". It has been acknowledged in the Justice Report, Administration Under Law (1971) at page 23 that "No single factor has inhibited the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of any general obligation upon public authorities to give reasons for their decisions". 46. Even then in the case of R v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham reported in (1991) 4 All ER 310, Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls, opined very strongly in favour of disclosing of reasons in a case where the Court is acting in its discretion. The learned Master of Rolls said : "..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 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In S.N. Mukherjee (supra) this court 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. 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds : (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 ....