TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volves a very short but very important and substantial question of law, namely, whether a court while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order-an order recording in brief at least the reasons which weighed with the court in determining the salient questions raised by the parties to the action while dismissing or rejecting the writ petition in order to enable the parties to know the reasons for such order, more particularly when there is provision for appeal including appeal on special leave to this Court under article 136 of the Constitution of India to apprise the appellate court of the reasons of the order in order to conform to the basic principles of justice and fairplay as well as the rule of law which pervades our constitutional system and also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. On this vital ground, we deem it just and proper to grant special leave and accordingly special leave is granted. The facts of the case in brief are, inter alia, that the petitioner, a B. Sc. with 2nd Class honours, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1951 in the New English Institute Girls High School, conducted and managed by registered societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not maintainable under the said Secondary School Code, the joint Director of Education, however, after hearing allowed the said appeal by his order dated 6th September, 1979, holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were of account matters. He further held that the management was equally responsible inasmuch as it left financial matters pertaining to the management of the society to the Headmaster and his clerks. Since it was not the duty of the Headmaster, he could not be held responsible in management of accounts in the capacity of Headmaster. Some of the charges pertaining to the duties as Headmaster had been fully proved and some partly against the petitioner. To be guilty under a single charge pertaining to financial matters is very serious. The joint Director, therefore, held that the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner had to be upheld. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 1837 of 1980 before the High Court of judicature at Bombay. On 12th August, 1980, the writ petition was rejected by merely recording the order, "rejected". No reasons whats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the petitioner that his appeal and his letter with the enclosures had been forwarded to the School Tribunal for hearing of the appeal and deciding it. This School Tribunal dismissed the said appeal without giving any decision on merits. Against the order of the School Tribunal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 4063 of 1984 before the High Court, Bombay. This writ petition was rejected by recording the following order : " Heard. In view of the earlier rejection of W.P. as well as the application to file appeal to Supreme Court, this W.P. is also rejected." Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed the instant petition for special leave to appeal in this Court. It was pleaded in the special leave petition that the third enquiry proceeding was commenced by the management under the provisions of clause 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code. Daring the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, it was further pleaded that the enquiry committee while proceeding with the enquiry arbitrarily violated the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of clause 77.3 of the said Code. The Headmaster who was biased against the petitioner was appointed as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the petitioner that the Enquiry Committee was biased against the petitioner and one of the nominees in the Enquiry Committee was the Headmaster of the institute who was the original complainant against the petitioner and, therefore, he was nominated by the management to act as a judge in his own cause. It was also submitted that the High Court of Bombay did not at all consider and decide both the writ petitions, i.e., the Writ Petition No. 1837 of 1980 and Writ Petition No. 4063 of 1984, on merits which were dismissed by recording the laconic order " rejected ". No speaking order was made assigning any reason whatsoever for rejecting the aforesaid two writ petitions which involved substantial questions of law and facts. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law which governs our policy that the Court including Writ Court is required to record reasons while disposing of a writ petition in order to enable the litigants, more particularly the aggrieved party, to know the reasons which weighed with the mind of the Court in determining the questions of facts and law raised in the writ petition or in the action brought. This is imperative for the fair and equitable administration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on the grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just. " This decision was rendered in connection with the cancellation of the licence of a wholesale distributor in sugar under the U.P. Sugar Dealer's Licensing Order, 1962, by the District Magistrate and the rejection of the appeal by the State Government without recording any reasons. The above decision has been relied upon in the case of Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lal [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
