1. Heard Sri M.K.Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. It is stated that on the question of members of family and also whether land in question is irrigated or not, petitioner raised specific objection not only before Prescribed Authority but also before Appellate Authority.
3. Submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner are mentioned in para 3 of judgment of Appellate Authority and reads as under :
^^vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls eq[;r;k% dgk x;k fd QkeZ&3 rF;ksa ds foijhr gS rFkk mlds ifjokj esa dqy 11 lnL; gSa blfy, N% gSDVs;j dh NwV feyuh pkfg,A ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd 3-96 fM0 Hkwfe HkV~Bs ds dkj.k xM~ "It is stated on behalf of the appellant, mainly, that Form-3 is contrary to the facts, and that there are total 11 members in his family; hence, a rebate of 6 hectares should have been given to him. It is also stated that the land measuring 3.96 dismil is a pit because of a kiln, 15.03 dismil land is an orchard and 1.77 dismil is Abadi land; a wrong statement has been prepared whereof by showing the same to be irrigated. It is also stated that the Lekhpal has, in his report dated 25.05.1985, mentioned the number of family members to be 11 but the competent authority misunderstood the evidences and statements available on record and gave benefit of just 2 hectares to the applicant instead of 6 hectares, thereby meaning, the benefit for just one major child has been given. It is also been stated that the appellant has land less than the ceiling standards and that the ceiling proceedings should be closed." (English Translation by Court)
4. Thereafter Appellate Court has recorded its findings as under :
^^eSa mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds mDr rdksZa ,oa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWaprk gwWa fd vihykFkhZ tks vkifRr fnukad 25&2&83 dks fu;r izkf/kdkjh ds ;gkWa izLrqr fd;k Fkk mlls fHkUu dksbZ ,slk lk{; esjs le{k ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k tks fopkj.kh; gksA fu;r izkf/kdkjh us gj igyw ij fopkjksijkUr lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k gS rFkk ifjokj ds lEcU/k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk& 3¼7½ ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr ifjokj ds vuqlkj tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS] mlds fo:) dksbZ ,slk fu;e ugha crk;k x;k ftlds dkj.k fu;r izkf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi djuk vko';d gksA vihy esa dksbZ cy ugha gS rFkk vLohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA rn~uqlkj vihy vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA** "From the said arguments adduced by learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the record, I conclude that no evidence worth consideration has been produced before me other than the objection submitted before the competent authority on 25.02.1983. The competent authority has, after considering every aspect, taken a decision based on the evidences; and as against the conclusion drawn o n the basis of the definition of family u/s 3(7) of the Act related to the family, no rule has been quoted which may warrant interference with the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority. The appeal has no substance and is liable to be rejected.
The appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
(English Translation by Court)
5. It is contended that Appellate Authority has not at all examined the issues raised by petitioner and order is wholly non-speaking and unreasoned.
6. I also found that the impugned appellate order is wholly unreasoned and conclusion has been drawn without giving any reason. Learned Standing Counsel despite his best efforts could not show any reason contained in impugned appellate order which has been given by authority concerned after considering submissions of petitioner.
7. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion.
8. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, as under:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
9. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368 in para 18 said:
"We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 836 that "rubber-stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable"
11. In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..."
12. Recently Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Kapoor (supra) in para 23 said:
"Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two."
13. The Apex Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision."
14. Since impugned appellate order is wholly unreasoned and non-speaking, the same cannot be sustained.
15. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.12.1994 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to appellate authority to re-examine petitioner's appeal and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 KA