Supreme Court of India
MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE versus MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
- Decided
- 10 December 2004
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 866 · 2004 INSC 709
- Also cited as
- (2005) 2 SCC 235
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Head learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
p. 867, margin A
Though may points were urged in support of the appeal relating to the eligibility of respondent No. 2 to be appointed as Chief, Town and Planning Division, we do not think it necessary to go into this aspect in detail. While issuing notice on 8.10.2004, it was indicated that the impugned order of the High Court being practically non-speaking and non-reasoned, the matter required to be set aside and remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal by a speaking order. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the High Court did not even indicate reasons as to why the respondent No. 2 was held to be eligible and/ or to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In response Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No. 2 clearly fulfilled eligibility criteria and made reference to various documents in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court and in this Court in this regard.
p. 867, margin B
We find that the writ petition involved disputed issues regarding eli· gibility. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-application of mind. This Court in several cases has indicated the necessity for recording reason.
p. 867, margin E
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed, [1971] 1 ALL E.R. 1148 "The giving of reasons in one of fundamental of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, [1974] ICR 120 NIRC it was observed : "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that ifthe decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinux", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speakingout. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 SCC 364.
pp. 867–868, margin F
One of the main points raised by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Council is that since respondent No. 2 had obtained degree in Master of Planning with specialization in Housing, she fulfilled the requisite qualification. This basic question was not even discussed by the High Court, though there was dispute as regards the acceptability of such a stand.
p. 868, margin B
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. It goes without saying that the High Court shall pass a speaking order recording reasons in support of its conclusions.
p. 868, margin C
It is pointed out by Mr. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel that on 28th September, 2004 respondent No. 2 has assumed officer after resigning from her earlier office. In the fitness of things, therefore, till fresh decision is taken, she shall be premitted to continue. It is, however, made clear that by granting this interim protection we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
p. 868, margin D
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. R.P. Appeal disposed of.
p. 868, margin F