DAYA RAM V. RAGHUNATH AND ORS INSC 698

Supreme Court Case Analysis Name of the case: Daya Ram vs Raghunath & Ors Date decided: 15 June, 2007 Facts: the appeal challenged the decision of a single judge learned bench of Allhabad high court allowing the writ petition by respondent. In 1983 a sub divisional district magistrate allotted allotted plot number 1734 in the name of the respondent. Soon after, a co villager, The appellant, noticed that the land was earlier being used as a path to kali mandir and that respondent number 1 wasn’t even entitled to any land by the government as he was not a landless person. Hence, this allotment was illegal. The appellant then filed a petition before the district magistrate of Maharajganj under sect. 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950. After examination by the district magistrate it was found that due procedure wasn’t adopted in the process of allotting land in favour of the appellant. By order passed on 7.11.2002, the collector cancelled the allotment and directed the land to be taken over by gaon sabha A review petition was filed by the respondent before the commissioner of Gorakhpur, the commissioner dismissed this petition as due procedure wasn’t followed and no spot inspection was done. In January 2003 the respondent filed a writ petition before high court of Allhabad. Learned single judge by order of 11.9.2003 allowed the writ petition by a non reasoned order. This order is the subject matter of challenge. Issue: whether an order can allow a writ petition without discussing its history and reasons to allow the petition? Decision: the decision was held for the appellant as the basic question about the eligibility of respondent no. 1 wasn’t referenced in the order and clarity to the order wasn’t provided as it was a non reasoned order. "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons 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 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 reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons 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 incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”