UNIVATE CORPORATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantive prayer in this Special Civil Application runs as follows: xxx That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order quashing and setting aside the decisions of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports conveyed to the petitioners vide Letter Nos. 5/11/CA/90-EP.1/433 dated 25.5.92 and 5/12//CA/90-EP.1/435 dated 25.5 and 5/4-6/CA/91-EP.1/471 dated 10.6.92 (Annexure D collectively) and also the decision conveyed by the Additional Director of Department of Electronics vide letter No. 4(4)/92-Comp/PC dated 19.5.92 and also the letter/decision of the Development Commissioner; Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala for Mr. P.M. Dave learned counsel for the petitioners states that the purpose of his clients would be served if the three proceedings of the 3rd respondent referred to in the first part of the substantive prayer extracted above are deleted and the question is directed to be re-examined by the 3rd respondent giving reasons after adverting to the merits of the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press forth the latter part of the substantive prayer relating to the proceedings of the Additional Director of Department of Electronics dated 19.5.1992 and also the decision of the Development Commissioner because according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the 3rd respondent being the authority to give an authoritative decision on the question they would be content to have such a decision afresh at the hands of the 3rd respondent. This statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners is recorded.

(2.) The claim of the petitioners is to get the benefit of the cash compensatory support. There are three proceedings of the 3rd respondent but they run on similar lines. The impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent disposed of second Appeals of the petitioners and confirmed the decisions of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Ahmedabad. The grievance of the petitioners is that except for expressing a regret that the Second Appeals are being rejected for the reason as expressed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Ahmedabad nothing has been set out as a reason as such for rejecting the Second Appeals. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners and in our view rightly that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent suffer from the vice of being non-speaking on material aspects of the merits of the claim of the petitioners. Mr. Bharat B. Naik learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel does not dispute that the 3rd respondent exercises a quasi judicial power while disposing of the Second Appeals but he is not in a position to support this type of orders made by the 3rd respondent.

(3.) It is now settled that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle of audi alteram partem a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi judicial process; and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. Recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi judicial functionary is obligatiory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice whim or fancy or reached on ground of policy or expediency. When orders of the present nature are liable to be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court will be rightly insisting that the Second Appeals of the present kind should be and ought to have been disposed of by a speaking order giving reasons in support of the same. These principles stand breached when we look into the three impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent. With a view to ameliorate the grievances of the petitioners thus we are obliged to interfere in writ powers and we quash the three impugned proceedings referred to in the first part of the substantive prayer in this Special Civil Application extracted above and the matters will stand remitted to the file of the 3rd respondent for him to examine the question afresh and pass orders giving reasons therefor avoiding the infirmities noted by us.