IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 3534/2019 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
Sri M. B. Ramachandran S/o Late Byrappa Aged about 82 years R/at No.55, Nandidurga Main Road Bangalore – 560046 Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Smt. R Pavithra Age: 51 years. … Petitioner (By Sri Ramachandra, Advocate for Sri H R Anantha Krishnamurthy- Advocate) AND:
1. The Enquiry Officer Karnataka State Board of WAKF No.6, Cunningham Road Bengaluru – 560052.
2. Masjid E.Azam (SUNNI) JUMMA MASJID ROAD Bengaluru District – 52 Rep. by its Manager Mr. Mohammed Ilyas. … Respondents (By Sri M. S. Raghavendra Prasad, Sr. Counsel for R-2; Sri Syed Imran, Advocate for R-1 - absent ) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 by Respondent No.1 i.e., Enquiry Officer, Karnataka State Board of WAKFS vide Annexure-L.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Sri.Rama Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.M.S.Raghavendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.1.
2. Perused the petition. The Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Enquiry Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakfs.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the impugned order suffers from vice of non application of mind. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner and the respondent shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA’, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In ‘SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL V. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND OTHERS’, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
6. In view of the well settled legal position, the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/* ct:b