LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-11

GOPINATH RAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On August 30, 2010
GOPINATH RAHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) On a bare reading of the said order it appears that it is a gross breach of principle of speaking order which is nothing but a facet of natural justice. Every order must be a "speaking order" only for the reason that the litigant should know what actually played in the mind of the Court to pass the judgment. The reasoning is the soul of a judgment. This point has already been settled by the Apex Court by several judgments which are discussed below.

(3.) It is the basic principle of law that every order passed by any administrative body or any quasi judicial body and/or even by the judicial body must disclose the reason of the order so that the person concerned who is affected thereby may approach the higher forum and/or higher Court assailing the decision thereof. In the case of Chairman, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Ors., 2009 4 SCC 240, the Court held that "reason must be given by the appellate or revisional authority even when affirming the impugned decision". Reliance was placed in that case, the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem v. Madhusudan Rao, 2008 3 SCC 469; M.R. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1966 AIR(SC) 671 and Seamen Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1976 2 SCC 981. In that case the Court explained and discussed the contra decision passed in the case of S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India,1990 4 SCC 94 by explaining the said decision that in case of affirmation, no reason separately required to be given as held in S. N. Mukherjee (supra) should be read as an observation meaning thereby that order of affirmation need not contain any elaborate reasoning as contained in original order, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reason need not be given in order of affirmance. The Court further explained in that case the earlier case of State of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, 1995 6 SCC 279, since in the case Probhu Dayal Grover (supra), it was observed that for affirmative order there was no necessity of giving any reason to this effect that the observation of the Prabhu Dayal Grover (supra) should be read as that the appellate authority should disclose briefly application of mind as without any reason cannot be satisfied. It has been further held at least that brief reason should be given so that one can know that the appellate authority has applied his mind.