AMBATI SRINIVASULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rules of natural justice are multi faceted and multi dimensional. Different facets of these rules have been applied by the Courts in India to invalidate administrative as well as judicial, quasi-judicial actions and orders. One of the facets of the rules of natural justice is that all judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or passing order which affects the rights, interest or status of a person must record reasons in support of their findings and conclusions and such reasons should be communicated to the person concerned. The requirement of recording reasons by judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative authorities and communication thereof to the affected persons has been highlighted and reiterated in various judgments of the Supreme Court including the often referred decisions in Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sundar, AIR 1961 SC 1669, M.P. Industries Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606, Mahavir Prasad Santoshkumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302, Travancore Rayons v. UOI, AIR 1971 SC 862, Messrs Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, AIR 1976 SC 437, Messrs Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Company v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, 2001 (1) ALD 6 (SC) = (2000) 7 SCC 668, State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 547 = 2004 AILD 204 (SC), State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 = 2004 AILD 277 (SC), State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573, Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado, 2005 (1) ALD 29 (SC) = AIR 2005 SC 1367 = 2004 AIR SCW 7204 = (2004) 7 SCC 431, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT, (2005) 5 SCC 75 and Manorama Sachan v. Lucknow Development Authority, (2005) 9 SCC 425. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court noticed the legal position obtaining in Australia, England, United States of America, referred to a large number of judicial precedents on the subject and laid down the following proposition :

(2.) In State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh (supra) the Supreme Court observed:

(3.) In State of Rajas than v. Sohan Lal (supra) the Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether the High Court was required to assign reasons for recording reasons while disposing of petitions filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. observed: