AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Raman, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Mr. D.Ku.Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority in appeal case MHE (+3)49/12 vide order dated 12.10.2012 passed the following order:
“xxx xxx xxx
Parties present.
The Educational Agency, Bagdevi Sanskrit College, Derabis, Kendrapara has appealed for grant of permanent recognition to Upasastri and Sastri Course from 2005-06 to 2011-12. Heard & perused the record.
The applicant’s institution is getting temporary recognition from time to time i.e. from 2005-06 to 2009-10.So far grant of P.R. is concerned it needs though examination of the conditions fulfilled by the E.A.
The matter is therefore remanded to the H.P.C for consideration.
The case is disposed of.”
Pursuant to the said direction to the High Powered Committee and observation of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2012 in W.P.(C) No.3448 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.3449 of 2012, a Committee was constituted vide Government notification No.15641/HE dated 01.05.2004. A meeting was held by the said committee on 16.11.2012 which passed the following order:-
“In pursuance of orders Dtd.28.03.2012 of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.C. No3448/2012 & No.3449/2012 and as per the report of RDE, Bhubaneswar the Committee constituted vide Govt. Notification No.15641/HE, dtd.01.05.2004 in their meeting held on 16.11.2012 after careful consideration has been pleased not to allow the grant of Permanent Recognition to Upasastri & Shastri Course from the session 2005-06 in favour of Bagdevi Sanskrit College, At/Po-Daliji, Chandol, Dist.-Kendrapara.”
Mr. D.K. Ray, learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the High Powered Committee as to why they have accorded permanent recognition from the session 2010-11 instead of 2005-06.
Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to those given by the original authority.
In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, it has been held that 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 and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.
Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915, Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.
Since reason is heart of every decision making process and no reason is assigned by the High Power Committee in the communication of Regional Director of Education dated 02.05.2015 vide Annexure-7, this Court, on the conceded position of learned Additional Standing Counsel, is inclined to set aside the office order dated 02.05.2013 and remit the matter to the Committee for taking appropriate decision within a period of four months from today and pass reasoned order and communicate the same to the Petitioner.
8 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ Petition stands disposed of.
.....……………………………