MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE versus MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 10-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, 
KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE 
v. 
MUMBAI METRO POLIT AN REGIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I 0, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Writ petition involving eligibility for appointment as 
Chief, Town and planning Division-Disposed of by High Court by a non-
speaking and non-reasoned order-Held, one of the S'alutary requirements 
of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made-A non-speaking 
D order renders it virtually impossible for court to perform their _appellate 
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity 
of the decision-On facts, the writ petition involved disputed issues 
regarding eligibility-The manner in which the High Court disposed of the 
writ petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was 
not kept in view-Order of High Court set aside and matter remitted to 
E it for fresh consideration and disposal by a speaking order-Administrative 
law-Principles of natural justice-None-speaking order. 
F 
Chairman and managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. 
v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 SCC 364, relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, [1971] 1 All ER 1148 and 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) ltd. v. Crabirees, (1974) ICR 120 NIRC, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 8260 of 
G 2004. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.2004 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. (Lodging) 2205 of 2004. 
Arun Jaitley and Navin Chawla for the Appellants. 
866 
-
MMRDA OFFICERS ASSON KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE v. M.M.R.D. ATHORITY [PASAYAT. J.] 
867 
R.F. Nariman, A.S. Bhasme and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Respondents. A 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Head learned counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
Though may points were urged in support of the appeal relating to the 
eligibility of respondent No. 2 to be appointed as Chief, Town and Planning 
Division, we do not think it necessary to go into this aspect in detail. While 
issuing notice on 8.10.2004, it was indicated that the impugned order of the 
High Court being practically non-speaking and non-reasoned, the matter 
required to be set aside and remitted to the High Court for fresh considera-
B 
c 
tion and disposal by a speaking order. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior 
counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the High Court did not even 
indicate reasons as to why the respondent No. 2 was held to be eligible and/ D 
or to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In response Mr. R.F. Nariman, 
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that 
respondent No. 2 clearly fulfilled eligibility criteria and made reference to 
various documents in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court and 
in this Court in this regard. 
We find that the writ petition involved disputed issues regarding eli· 
gibility. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ 
petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was not kept 
in view and is a classic case of non-application of mind. This Court in 
E 
several cases has indicated the necessity for recording reason. 
F 
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen 
v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed, [1971] 1 ALL E.R. 1148 "The 
giving of reasons in one of fundamental of good administration." In Alex-
ander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, [1974] ICR 120 NIRC it was 
observed : "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons G 
are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in 
question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute 
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that ifthe 
decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinux", it can, by its silence, 
render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity 
of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial 
system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the 
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural 
justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-
B out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a 
judic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.