TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri S.B. Shinde, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant argues that he has ample grounds to succeed in the appeal, but the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without looking to the respective citations and also his submissions, summarily disposed the appeal by a simple sentence that the ld. Consultant reiterated the contention raised in the appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) neither being speaking nor reasoned is unsustainable. Heard ld. JDR, Shri S.B. Shinde who supported the order passed by the ld. Appellate Authority below. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The impugned order shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be set aside. 7. The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure. The necessity of giving reasons flows from the concept of rule of law which constitutes one of the cornerstones of our constitutional set up. The administrative authorities chartered with the duty to act judicially cannot decide matters on considerations of policy or expediency. The requirement of recording of reasons by such authorities is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision making process. Another reason which makes it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Comp Cas 387 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1669; (2) Bhagat Raja v. Union of India , AIR 1967 SC 1606; (3) Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. Union of India , 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J378) (S.C.) = AIR 1971 SC 862; (4) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of UP ,, AIR 1970 SC 1302; (5) Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union , AIR 1973 SC 2758; (6) Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC); AIR 1976 SC 437; (7) Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 1976 SC 1785; (8) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India , AIR 1990 SC 1984; (9) Shanti Prasad Agarwalla v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. These courts have the power under the said provisions to quash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an Administrative Officer and this power of review can be effectively exercised only if the order is a speaking order. In the absence of any reasons in support of the order, the said courts cannot examine the correctness of the order under review. The High Court and the Supreme Court would be powerless to interfere so as to keep the Administrative Officer within the limits of the law. The result would be that the power of judicial review would be stultified and no redress being available to the citizen, there would be insidious encouragement to arbitrariness and caprice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
