AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent no.2 has completely failed to discharge his statutory duty inasmuch as the order was passed without recording any finding with respect to the explanation of the petitioner and the evidences filed alongwith the reply. He further submits that appellate authority has also passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 in the same manner. Both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned orders. 5. Perusal of the appellate order dated 25.11.2013 shows that the respondent no.3 has firstly noted the arguments of the petitioner and thereafter he noted the argument of ADGC (Criminal), Agra. In the last but one paragraph of the order, he noted the facts in brief and thereafter abruptly recorded a finding that the charges against the petitioner, are found proved. Neither any of the arguments of the petitioner have been considered by the respondent no.3 nor any finding giving reasons for acceptance or rejection of the arguments, have been recorded. 6. In the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 42 as under : "42. We are aware that the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573]. 32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut reasons for the order made;......." (Emphasis supplied by me) 10. In the case of CCT Vs. Shukla & Bros. (2010) 4 SCC 785 ( paras 20, 24 to 27) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "20. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pipe Arts India (P) Ltd. V. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare (2008)6 Mah LJ 280, wherein the Bench was concerned with an appeal against an order, where prayer for an interim relief was rejected without stating any reasons in a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order was challenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer and this has seriously prejudiced the interest of justice. After a detailed discussion on the subject, the Court held: (Mah LJ pp.283-87, paras 8,10 & 12-22) "8. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it is always desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actions whether administrative or quasi-judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authorities concerned to act fairly and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective opinion varying from Judge to Judge. 13. In Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 242, the Supreme Court while dealing with the cases under the Labour Laws and Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 observed that even when the petition under Article 226 is dismissed in limini, it is expected of the High Court to pass a speaking order, may be briefly. (emphasis supplied) 14. Consistent with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the aforereferred cases, in State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors.(2001) 10 SCC 607, the Supreme Court held as under:(SCC p.608, para 4) '4.The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal. ...The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. 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. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable." 15. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the Court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....approach. A right of appeal could be created by a special statute or under the provisions of the Code governing the procedure. In either of them, absence of reasoning may have the effect of negating the purpose or right of appeal and, thus, may not achieve the ends of justice. 21. It will be useful to refer words of Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court of Queensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on 13-9-2002 in relation to Judgment Writing. Describing that some judgment could be complex, in distinction to routine judgments, where one requires deeper thoughts, and the other could be disposed of easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking about purpose of the judgment, he said, 'The first matter to consider is the purpose of the judgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written:- (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to provide reasons for an appeal Court to consider.' 22. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that too for no reasons, as is demonstrated from the order impugned in the present appeals." 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 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, dissatisfaction 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 concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for ....