RAM MURTI SARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two ques tions which has been referred to us for our opinion are as follows:-

(2.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgments of my brothers Khare and Mathur and I am inclined to agree with my brother Khare. The Majority view of our Full Bench in Haji Manzoor Ahmad v. State of U. P. 1968 All LJ 809 = (AIR 1970 All 467 (FB)) in which it was held that proceedings under Section 7-F of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (herein after referred to as the Act) are quasi judicial in character, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, 1965 All LJ 353 = (AIR 1965 SC 1767). The Supreme Court fur ther re-affirmed the aforesaid view in Vasudeo Chaube v. Vaidya Nand Kishore, (1968 All LJ 1021. My answer to the first question, therefore, is in the affirmative.

(3.) IT may be desirable that a Tri bunal while passing its order in a case referred to it in revision, as it was in the cases before us, should give its reasons for the decision arrived at by it. Such an order passed by a Tribunal may be questioned before the Supreme Court on appeal under Art. 136(1) of the Constitution or it may be challenged before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and it may be proper that the Supreme Court or the High Court should have the benefit of examin ing the reasons on the basis of which the Tribunal had arrived at its decision. But there appears to be no provision under Section 7-F of the Act which can compel, as a matter of law, the State Government to record its reasons while passing an order under Section 7-F of the Act. It may be desirable for the State Government to record its reasons while giving its decision in proceedings under Section 7-F of the Act. But as long as there is no specific provision directing the State Government to make a speaking order while giving its deci sion under Section 7-F of the Act. an order passed by it on an application in revision cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it has not given any reason for its decision. The observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases were made with particular refer ence to the provisions of the enactments under which the orders in question be fore the Supreme Court were passed and they can only be considered as directory in nature so far as they relate to an order passed by the State Govern ment under Section 7-F of the Act. My brother Khare has considered the deci sions of the Supreme Court which fol lowed Bhagat Raja's case, AIR 1967 SC 1606 and I fully agree with his reasons that the decisions in the aforesaid cases have to be read in the context of the provisions of the particular enactments with which those cases were concerned.