9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter, the said Commission). 3. In the case of the builder, the said Commission has not given any reason and dismissed the revision petition by passing a cryptic order dated 31-8-2007 which roads as under : Heard. In view of the concurrent findings of the State Commission, we do not find any force in this revision petition. The revision Petition is dismissed. 4. In so far as the case of the builder is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said Commission cannot, considering the way it is structured, dismiss the revision petition by refusing to give any reasons and by just affirming the order of the State Commission. 5. The said Commission has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter CP Act) as follows : 2(k) National Commission means the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established under clause (c) of Section 9; 6. Under Section 9(c) of CP Act, the said Commission has been established by the Central Government by a notification. 7. The composition of the said Commission has been provided under Section 20 of the CP Act and wherefrom it is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely :- (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. 13. Under Section 13(5) of CP Act, every proceeding of the said Commission will be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the said Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. The above provisions make it clear that the said Commission has the trappings of a Civil Court and is a high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, in passing the said order. Government did not give any reason. The company challenged the said decision before this Court. 20. The other question which arose in Harinagar (supra) was whether the Central Government, in passing the appellate order acted as a tribunal and is amenable to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court. 21. Even though in Harinagar (supra) the decision was administrative, this Court insisted on the requirement of recording reason and further held that in exercising appellate powers, the Central Government acted as a tribunal in exercising judicial powers of the State and such exercise is subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court. Such powers, this Court held, cannot be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of the order (Para 23, page 1678-79). 22. Again in the case of Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1606, the Constitution Bench of this Court examined the question whether the Central Government was bound to pass a speaking order while dismissing a revision and confirming the order of the State Government in the context of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in support of conclusions in the Award. The Court held that the very requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong (See para 5 page 2761). 26. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, AIR 1974 SC 87, this Court while dealing with the question of selection under Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion Regulation) held that the expression reasons for the proposed supersession should not be mere rubber stamp reasons. Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asi-judicial in character. One of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is following the principles of natural justice. Learned Judge held that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (See para 14 page 1922). 32. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor (supra), held that rubber-stamp reason is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra) to the extent that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. (See para 18 page 377). 33. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1, while giving the majority judgment Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud referred to Broom s Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows : Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex 34. The English version of the said principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers, (1991) 2 SCC 716, this Court held that even in domestic enquiry if the facts are not in dispute non-recording of reason may not be violative of the principles of natural justice but where facts are disputed necessarily the authority or the enquiry officer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see para 22, pages 738-739). 39. In the case of M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 119, this Court dealt with an award under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act and held that since the said award affects public interest, reasons must be recorded in the award. It was also held that such reasons are to be recorded so that it enables the High Court to exercise its power of judicial review on the validity of the award, (see para 8, page 123). 40. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3138, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with a grievance under CP Act, held that the authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at conclusions based on reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or those of his authorized military representatives. 44. Our Constitution also deals with Court Martial proceedings differently as is clear from Articles 33, 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution. 45. In England there was no common law duty of recording of reasons. In Marta Stefan v. General Medical Council, (1999) 1 WLR 1293, it has been held, the established position of the common law is that there is no genera], duty imposed on our decision makers to record reasons . It has been acknowledged in the Justice Report, Administration Under Law (1971) at page 23 that No single factor has inhibited the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of any general obligation upon public authorities to give reasons for their decisions . 46. Even then in the case of R v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham reported in (1991) 4 All ER 310, Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls, opined very strongly in favour of disclosing of reasons in a case where the Court is acting in its discretion. The learned Master of Rolls said : ..It is a corollary of the discretion conferred upon the board that it is their duty to set out their reasoning in sufficient for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as the Court cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review . In S.N. Mukherjee (supra) this court relied on the decisions of the U.S. Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, (1942) 87 Law Ed 626 and John T. Dunlop v. Walter Bachowski, (1975) 44 Law Ed 377 in support of its opinion discussed above. 51. Summarizing 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 relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 . 52. for the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remand the matter to the said forum for deciding the matter by passing a reasoned order in the light of the observations made above. Since some time has elapsed, this Court requests the forum to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of service of this order upon it. 53. In so far as the appeal filed by the Bank is concerned, this Court finds that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order dated 4th April 2008 has given some reasons in its finding. The reasons, inter alia, are as under : We have gone through the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, perused the record placed before us and heard the parties at length. The State Commission has rightly confirmed the order of the District Forum after coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner and- the Builder - Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
