AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order contained in letter dated 21st March, 2005 at Annexure 9, whereby the liability of Rs. 88,84,951 was credited on account of damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has preferred this application.
The contention of the petitioner is that on earlier round of litigations over the same subject matter, this court had been pleased to remand the matter to the concerned competent authorities under the aforesaid Act to pass fresh reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner for fixing its liability under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and submitted his categorical stand that mines work was itself closed w.e.f. 10.2.1994 due to nonrenewal of the mining lease. Further it was pointed out to the authorities that the notice in question itself disclosed levy of 100% damages, which is contrary to the Scheme in Para 32A of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. The petitioner had also raised other issues that the liabilities after 1993 have been saddled upon its Establishment without taking into account the fact that no work had been executed by the petitioner as the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled on 29.3.1993 and the respondents have thereafter proceeded to issue the impugned order contained at Annexure 9 dated 21st March, 2005. It is further submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the order shows complete non-application of mind as none of the contentions of the petitioner have been dealt with by recording any reason of findings of fact. Moreover, the chart which is part of the impugned order, does not disclose the break up of the amount of damages levied for the different period, which has been charged upon the relevant periods, in which the petitioner has been found to be defaulter. In absence of the order being speaking order the petitioner is constrained to assail the same before the Higher Forum/Appellate Forum.
The respondents have appeared and filed their counter-affidavit, in which they have categorically stated that the impugned order has been passed after giving due opportunity to the petitioner in terms of the previous order passed by this Court and thereafter the discrepancies pointed out by the Establishment have taken into regard in the impugned order which has been passed after proper rectification of the discrepancies.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the records and impugned order, it appears that the impugned order is non speaking order as it does not deal with the contention of the petitioner. From the impugned order, it does not appear that the question relating to the liability for the period 1993 onwards have been specifically addressed by arriving at a finding before levying the damages as enclosed in the chart in the impugned order. It further appears from the chart enclosed in the impugned order that it does not contain any break-up of the damages and the interest charged for different periods, which in the opinion of the respondents, the petitioner was found to be defaulter. Reasons are the soul and heart beat of order, in absence of which the aggrieved person is precluded from challenging the same before the Higher Forum/Appellate authority. Even the Appellate Authority or the Higher Forum is precluded from scrutinizing/analyzing the order in question as to what went into the minds of the authorities passing the impugned order. Moreover, the reasons are also required to ensure transparency in functioning of the statutory authorities created under the Act including the Act of 1952.
This Court is constrained to observe in spite of remand by this Court in the earlier writ application, this impugned order has been passed, which shows complete non-application of mind. The net effect of which is that the beneficial provisions of the Act are being denied to the persons who are intended to be the actual beneficiary. It would be profitable to quote herein a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India delivered in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, . Para 47 of the opinion as delivered by Ganguly, J is quoted hereinbelow:
Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(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. Alt 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 in-crementalism.
(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. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor)
(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. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 Para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.
(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 view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the impugned order is once again non-speaking order, this Court is left with no option but to quash the same and remand it to competent authority i.e. respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Employees'' Provident Fund Organization to decide the matter afresh after giving due and reasonable opportunity to the parties i.e. the petitioner and the departmental representative within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.