2017 (3) TMI 1751 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - cancellation of fair price shop agreement - case of petitioner is that the impugned order is passed in a most arbitrary manner and without considering the reply of the petitioner - HELD THAT - The appellate authority is under obligation to consider with due care every fact for and against and to record its finding in a manner which may clearly indicate as to whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established and whether the facts so established afford sufficient ground for taking action. Absence of the findings to disclose reasons in an order in the manner indicated above renders the order to be indefensible/unsustainable. Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. In the absence of reasons the order becomes lifeless. Non recording of reasons renders the order to be violative of principles of natural justice. Reasons ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. It enables litigant to know reasons for acceptance or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. It is link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. Thus failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Perusal of the impugned appellate order further shows that the petitioner specifically argued before the respondent no.3 with references to the evidences on record with respect to certification of stock and distribution receipt of essential commodities by the complainants as recorded in the sale register bearing signatures of the complainants non supply of inquiry report and non consideration of the explanation submitted and the evidences filed - The impugned appellate order prima facie indicates failure on the part of the respondent no.3 to discharge his duty. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed - Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cancellation of the fair price shop agreement was arbitrary and in breach of principles of natural justice.
2. Whether the appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's arguments and evidence.
3. Whether the orders lacked proper reasoning and were thus unsustainable.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Arbitrary Cancellation and Breach of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, a fair price shop agent, had his agreement canceled by the respondent on 29.12.2012. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was done arbitrarily and without considering his reply, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. The respondent failed to record any findings regarding the petitioner's explanation and the evidence submitted along with his reply. This lack of consideration and failure to discharge statutory duty constituted a breach of natural justice.

2. Failure to Consider Petitioner's Arguments and Evidence:
The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 25.11.2013 without considering his arguments or the evidence presented. The judgment noted that the appellate authority did not provide reasons for accepting or rejecting the petitioner's arguments. The appellate order merely recorded the charges against the petitioner as proved without addressing the petitioner's submissions. This failure to consider arguments and evidence rendered the appellate decision arbitrary and negligent.

3. Lack of Proper Reasoning:
The judgment emphasized that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained, as giving reasons is a rule of natural justice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that judicial and administrative orders must be supported by reasons to ensure transparency and fairness. The appellate order lacked reasons, making it unsustainable. The judgment cited multiple Supreme Court rulings underscoring the necessity of recording reasons in judicial orders to ensure that every fact for and against is considered with due care and that findings are clearly indicated.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority's order dated 25.11.2013 was quashed for failing to provide reasons and consider the petitioner's arguments and evidence. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law, by a speaking and reasoned order, after considering the petitioner's submissions and evidence, and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The writ petition was allowed to this extent.