Smt. Chandrakanta vs Pradeep Soni

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 14.10.2016, whereby the Court below has allowed the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the respondents No.5 to 7.

Briefly stated, the admitted facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for injunction. The relief claimed in the said suit was against the Government Officials. During the pendency of said suit, the private respondents herein preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 151. For the reasons stated in the said application, it is prayed that in public interest the applicants therein may be permitted to be impleaded as defendants. The

said application preferred on 29.08.2016 was opposed by the present petitioners by filing reply on 08.09.2016 (Annexure-P/3). The petitioners contended that plaintiff being dominus litis alone can decide as to who should be impleaded as an defendants in the suit. It is further averred that the respondents No.5 to 7 have no business with the proceedings of the suit and hence they are neither necessary nor proper party in the instant suit.

The Court below by impugned order dated 14.10.2016 allowed the said application. Criticizing this order, Mr. Sripurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has allowed the application on following reasons:-

(i) The application under Order 1 Rule 10 is filed by the applicants promptly i.e., before framing of the issues. (ii) The applicants appear to be necessary parties. (iii) If applicants are impleaded, the nature of suit will not undergo any change.

Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on 2005 (6) SCC 733 [ Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & others ] and 2010 (7) SCC 417 [ Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Center and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & others ] submits that the petitioners have not claimed any relief against the private respondents. The private respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties.

Mr. Sankalp Kocher, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 7 submits that as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC the Court below is empowered to issue necessary directions for impleading all necessary parties. By taking this Court to the averments of the main application it is urged that the Court below has rightly allowed the said application.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

A plain reading of the application (Annexure-P/2) and reply (Annexure-P/3) shows that the parties had taken a diametrically opposite stand about locus-standi of private respondents herein. In other words, the private respondents contended that they are necessary parties and may be impleaded as necessary parties in public interest, whereas petitioners in his reply (Annexure-P/3) seriously disputed it. The Court below reached to a conclusion that the private respondents herein/applicants appears to be necessary parties. However, no reasons are assigned by the Court below in support of the said conclusion. In the opinion of this Court when parties were at loggerheads on the point whether applicants were necessary/proper party or not, the Court below ought to have been examined this aspect and should have assigned reasons for the conclusion arrived. As noticed, the conclusion arrived about necessary party is not based on any reason whatsoever. Reasons are held to be heartbeats of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. Masood Khan & other, 2010 (9) SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial 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.

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 life blood 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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.

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 (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of 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"."

[Emphasized Supplied]

If impugned order is tested on the anvil of the principles laid down in Kranti Associates (supra), it will be crystal clear that the Court below has recorded the conclusion which is not supported by any reasons. Thus, the order of Court below suffers form non-application of mind. It also suffers from procedural impropriety. Resultantly, the order dated 14.10.2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for hearing the parties on the application (Annexure-P/2) and decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.