Bhikam Singh and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order Annexure P/1 dated 07.02.2012. By this order, the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff for treating his suit in representative capacity is rejected. The singular reason for rejection is that the plaintiff has not filed any resolution or document to show that the persons for whom suit is filed in representative capacity have given their consent to the plaintiff to file the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is noticed that the Court below has rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff, solely on the ground that no resolution has been filed in support of the suit and, therefore, it cannot be treated in a representative capacity. The Court below has not assigned any reason nor relied on any provision which requires filing of any such resolution along with the plaint. The conclusion of the Court below is not based on any reason. In other words, no reasons are assigned for conclusion that in absence of resolution, permission to file suit for representative capacity cannot be granted.

This is settled in law that reasons are heart beats of conclusion. In Judicial proceedings reasons must be given to maintain purity, transparency and faith of the litigant in the system. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, has emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants'' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process.

In the opinion of this Court, order needs to be interfered with because it is not based on any reason. Resultantly, impugned order dated 07.02.2012 to the extent petitioner''s application under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is rejected. The Court below is directed to rehear the parties on said application and pass order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.