2008 (8) TMI 468 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-speaking order - It is single line order a cryptic one stating no reason for that decision. - The request was for exercising a power of exemption. To grant or not is within the power of the authority empowered to grant in terms of law. But it is of the core principles of administrative law that a decision has to contain its reasons. This is on account of different reasons. - Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that all citizens shall have the right to information subject to the provisions of that Act. Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005 Act provides that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons - It goes without saying that the impugned order is one which affects the writ petitioner s claim for promotion to higher post to which his employer society has agreed. Therefore the petitioner has the statutory right in terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to be provided with the reasons for the administrative decision of the Government Impugned order being an arbitrary exercise of authority since it results in negation of the Rule of Law and thereby infraction of the fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. so impugned order is quashed and matter remanded for passing fresh orders - Time has come when the prestigious and salutary principles of administrative law have found expression in provisions like the one noticed in this judgment from the RTI Act. They are laws to be always remembered and obeyed by the administrative or other authorities who are public authorities.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to non-speaking order Ext. P6 by an employee of a co-operative society regarding exemption for promotion.

Analysis:
The judgment primarily focuses on the challenge against Ext. P6, which is a non-speaking order issued by the Government denying an exemption requested by the petitioner's employer, a co-operative society, for the petitioner's promotion. The court clarifies that the judgment is specifically addressing the issue of Ext. P6 being a non-speaking order, leaving other matters open for future consideration.

The court emphasizes the importance of providing reasons for administrative decisions, citing core principles of administrative law. It notes that a decision must contain reasons to uphold the decision-making process and enable judicial review if necessary. Reference is made to the Right to Information Act, 2005, highlighting that public authorities are required to provide reasons for their decisions under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. As both the Government and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are public authorities, the petitioner, under the RTI Act, has the statutory right to be provided with reasons for the decision reflected in Ext. P6.

The judgment underscores that the failure to provide reasons for the administrative decision, as seen in Ext. P6, violates the provisions of the RTI Act. This violation is deemed arbitrary and infringes upon the Rule of Law, thereby impacting the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, the court highlights the significance of administrative law principles, emphasizing that these principles are now enshrined in laws like the RTI Act. It stresses that administrative authorities, as public authorities, must adhere to these principles and provide reasons for their decisions.

In conclusion, the court allows the writ petition, quashing Ext. P6 without delving into the merits of the case. It directs the Government to reconsider the issue, provide the petitioner and the employer an opportunity for a hearing, and pass fresh orders within three months in accordance with the law. This decision underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal procedures in administrative decision-making processes.