Syeda Shahazore vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Lingaraja Rath, J.—In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge upholding the order passed by the State Government in dismissing the appeal of the appellant husband against the externment order passed by respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, is assailed. The order of externment was passed by respondent No. 2 under the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. The appellant''s husband preferred an appeal to the Government on 29-12-1995 raising several grounds - that he was falsely and unreasonably implicated in criminal cases of which he has been acquitted, there was no single case pending against him in any Court and that all the cases booked against him were for the period preceding 1989. He also stated that he belongs to business family, he is an Income Tax payee and he himself is a businessman. It was thus his case that there are no grounds for his externment and he also denied the notice from respondent No. 2 to have been received by him.

Orders passed by the Government on 26-2-1995 read as follows :

"The appeal petition of Mohd. Abdul Waheed alias Shaakeel s/o Hazi Mohd. Khaza r/o Iranigalli, Mandi Miralam against his orders of externment passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, is rejected."

As against the orders passed by Commissioner of Police, an appeal is provided under S. 26(9) of the Act. The appeal being statutory, undoubtedly the function of the Government in deciding the appeal is a quasi-judicial one. It is eminently necessary for a quasi-judicial authority, in discharge of its functions, to assign reasons for taking the decision, so that not only that the reasons are available to the superior court to know what consideration impelled the authority to take the view as taken, but also the order to be transparent enough so as to acquaint the affected person of how his grievance has been considered. The view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, , as follows :

"Opportunity to a party interested in the dispute to present his case on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi-judicial determination. It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him, it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just."

Obviously, the Government in deciding the appeal did not adhere to the principles and a wholly cryptic order dismissing the appeal was communicated. The learned single Judge took the view that as the appeal was dismissed upholding the orders of the Commissioner, it would be tacit approval of the reasons assigned by the Commissioner and the file relating to the appeal was produced before him which showed the considerations to have been made. However, our direction to the learned Government Pleader to produce the file relating to the appeal was not complied with and it was stated by him (sic) he not being able to secure the records.

An order of externment of a citizen of the country is of a serious consequence directly offending Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, unless it can be supported on cogent reasons. Ours is a Constitution which upholds individual liberty and any deprivation of liberty is bound to be viewed with seriousness. The Government, as an appellate authority is expected to deal with the appeal taking into consideration all the grounds raised and its mind made clear as to the consideration made of each of the grounds and the least that a citizen can expect is to be communicated with a reasoned order. It is not enough that an order is passed on the file and only a cryptic portion is communicated and it is not that in all cases the court must delve to the records of the Government to fish out the reasons in support of the order. Though such effort on the part of the Court cannot be ruled out in particular cases, yet that cannot be a matter of uniform practice. Transparency of executive and quasi-judicial functions is an inalienable principle of rule of law.

It is, however, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that since elections are due to be held on the 2nd May, 1996, presence of the appellant''s husband before the elections might create tension and lead to unwanted situations.

In view of such facts, we allow the appeal holding that the order of externment shall be effective only till 2nd May, 1996 and that the orders would have no effect from 3rd May, 1996.

Appeal allowed.