Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in February 2021, emphasized the importance of passing reasoned and speaking orders by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities. The case involved a fair price shop dealer whose license had been affected by an adverse order of the District Magistrate, Samastipur. The petitioner had challenged this order in appeal before the Collector, but the Collector dismissed the appeal on 17.12.2019 with a three-line order that gave no reasons and did not deal with the submissions raised.
The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the Collector’s decision violated the principles of natural justice because it was an unreasoned, non-speaking order. He pointed out that an authority deciding an appeal must address the arguments raised and explain why the decision is justified.
The State’s counsel was unable to defend the order, as it was apparent that the Collector’s decision lacked reasoning.
The High Court examined the matter and agreed with the petitioner. It observed that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must speak for themselves. A decision without reasons is arbitrary and does not inspire confidence in the justice system.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, which laid down why recording reasons is essential:
- It shows that justice is being done and seen to be done.
- It restrains arbitrariness in decision-making.
- It ensures fairness and accountability.
- It provides clarity for appellate or judicial review.
- It strengthens public confidence in the system.
The Supreme Court had described that an order must not resemble the “inscrutable face of a sphinx.” Instead, it should clearly indicate why a conclusion has been reached.
Applying these principles, the High Court set aside the Collector’s order dated 17.12.2019. However, instead of deciding the matter itself, the Court remanded the case back to the Collector with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Thus, the High Court upheld the petitioner’s grievance and ensured that due process would be followed in the reconsideration of his appeal.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision is highly significant for cases involving government departments, licensing authorities, and administrative tribunals. The judgment clarifies that:
- Reasoned orders are not optional but mandatory.
- Even in administrative matters (such as Public Distribution System licensing), authorities must explain their decisions.
- Citizens affected by government action are entitled to know why a decision has gone against them.
- Arbitrary, unreasoned, or “rubber-stamp” orders are legally unsustainable and will be struck down by the courts.
For the general public, especially those dependent on PDS shops, the ruling ensures transparency and fairness in licensing decisions. For the government, it reinforces accountability standards and prevents arbitrary actions by officials.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether an appeal can be dismissed by a short, unreasoned order?
❌ Decision: No. A non-speaking order violates natural justice and cannot stand. - What is the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities when deciding appeals?
✅ Decision: Authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders, dealing with submissions raised by parties. - What remedy was granted?
✅ Decision: The High Court set aside the Collector’s order and remanded the case for a fresh, reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 — The Supreme Court held that recording reasons is an indispensable part of judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative decision-making.
Case Title
Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5178 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 784
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
(Oral Judgment dated 08.02.2021)
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
Link to Judgment
MTUjNTE3OCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-HUfqDnf–am1–2uw=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
