U.O.I. versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

U.O.l. AND ORS . 
A 
.-- ~ 
v. 
JAi PRAKASH SINGH AND ANR. 
MARCH 8, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Judgment/Order: 
Non-reasoned order-Writ Petitioner claiming benefit under a policy- c 
High Court without indicating reasons describing the policy to be arbitrary--
Challenge against-Held, High Court traveled beyond the pleadings-Order 
being cryptic and without reasons is not sustainable. 
Writ Petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not granted permission to operate 
Gramin PCO. He filed Writ Petition before the High Court. Appellants D 
contended before High Court that a Gramin PCO described in the guidelines 
of Ministry of Communications, as Village Public Telephone (VPT)was already 
_,, ... 
existing in the concerned village and, therefore, the prayer of writ petitioner 
could not be accepted. 
High Court by cryptic order held that the conditions in the guidelines E 
were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 
and directed to allot a VPT. 
In appeal to this Court, Appellants challenged the order on the ground 
that no reason has been indicated as to why the guidelines were found to be 
illegal/arbitrary under the National Communication Policy, 1994, Department F 
of Telecommunication is providing VPT. They further contended that the 
department did not have adequate resources to provide more than one VPT in 
a village under the VPT programme. However, Wherever technically feasible, 
second and subsequent public telephone can be provided which shall be at the 
cost of the appellant. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
t 
HELD: 1. The 1994 guidelines have been amended from time to time 
and clarifications have been issued subsequently on 8.12.1998 and 9.3.1999. 
757 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A It appears that for installation of VPT, definite role is assigned to the Gram 
' ,, 
Panchayat. The guidelines of 8.12.1988 stipulate that the Gram Panchayat 
will recommended only one VPT in a village and the Question of multiple 
cases does not arise. In case of any dispute, the case is to be di!;cussed with 
Panchayats and resolved. The recommendations for extension/101:ation are to 
B 
be given by the Panchayat or the BDO as the case may be. !Para 6] 
[760-C-D) 
2. The High Court, without indicating any reason has described the 
policy to be arbitrary. Interestingly, the writ petitioner had not challenged 
the legality of the policy. In fact, he was claiming benefit under the policy. 
c Unfortunately, the High Court traveled beyond the pleadings. It did not grant 
any opportunity to the present appellant to file even counter affidavit and by a 
non-reasoned order struck down the policy. The order of the High Court has 
been stayed by this Court on 1.9.1999. [Para 7] [760-E) 
D 
3.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration 
of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, however brief 
in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order 
is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has 
.,.,. ., 
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. [Para 8] 
E 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 and 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120, referred 
to. 
3.2. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to 
the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons 
F substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is 
that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its 
>.. 
...--
silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate 
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 
G system, reason at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the 
matter before Court. 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 out. The " inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily ineongruous 
with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 9] [760-H; 761-A, B, CJ 
H 
> 
U.0.1. v. JAi PRAKASH SINGH [PASAYAT.J.] 
759 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5687 of2000. 
A 
From the Judgment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.