LexSTATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS. versus SAROJ MAURYA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 733 : 2024 INSC 677 State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023) 21 August 2024 [Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order passed by the Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, without furnishing any reasons therefor. Headnotes† Judgment/order – Reasoned order – Requirement of – Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, concluded with an observation that it is in agreement with the approach and view of the Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor – Sustainability: Held: Concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law – Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision – Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice – There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment – Reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court – Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object – On facts, in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained – Matter remanded back to the Division Bench for the parties to appear and address arguments afresh – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside. [Paras 3-5] Case Law Cited CCT v. Shukla & Bros. [2010] 4 SCR 627 : (2010) 4 SCC 785 – relied on. 734 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords Reasoned order; Judge-made law; Concept of reasoned judgment; Rule of law; Procedural law; Clarity of thoughts; Just and fair decision; Administration of justice; Absence of reasons. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SPLA No. 222 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Krishnanand Pandeya, Divyanshu Sahay, Yash Kirti Kumar Bharti, Advs. for the Appellants. Sanjoy Ghose, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Mohnish Nirwan, Ashok Kumar, Abhishek Pratap Singh, Sahil Baraik, Yash Tewari, Shashank Rai, Jacob Benny, Piyush Singh, Umesh Dubey, Dushyant Parashar, R.K. Singh, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Tom Joseph, R. Krishnaraj, Kumar Gaurav, Arjun Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has assailed the Judgment and Order dated 18th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an intra court appeal1 directed against the common judgment and order dated 21st December, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. We have perused the impugned judgment and find that except for placing on record the case of the writ petitioners and the respondents followed by the findings returned by the learned Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, on its own the Division Bench has not expressed its view on the issues raised before it. The judgment simply concludes with an observation that the Division Bench is in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor. 1 Special Appeal No.222 of 2022 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 735 State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors. 2. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that there were various Government Orders2 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh including G.O. dated 11th December, 2020 that was brought to the notice of the Division Bench but has not been dealt with at all. She states that much water has flown under the bridge by now and there are further G.Os. and Circulars issued by the appellants which ought to have been taken into consideration and without any application of mind, the impugned judgment has been passed simply upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.