MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADEversusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

A                    MMRDA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
                      KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE
                                  v.
                    MUMBAI METRO POLITAN REGIONAL
                   DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

B                              DECEMBER I 0, 2004

                  [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 :
c
           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

E
     not kept in view-Order of High Court set aside and matter remitted to
     it for fresh consideration and disposal by a speaking order-Administrative
     law-Principles of natural justice-None-speaking order.
                                                                                    -
         Chairman and managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors.
    v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 SCC 364, relied on.
F
         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.

        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.
H
                                         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.
                                                                                          B
     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              c
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-
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.
                                                                                          E
      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
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
    judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Chairman and Managing Director,
    United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 SCC 364.

         One of the main points raised by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior
    Council is that since respondent No. 2 had obtained degree in Master of
c   Planning with specialization in Housing, she fulfilled the requisite qualifi-
    cation. This basic question was not even discussed by the High Court,
    though there was dispute as regards the acceptability of such a stand.

         Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
D   we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. It
    goes without saying that the High Court shall pass a speaking order record-
    ing reasons in support of its conclusions.

         It is pointed out by Mr. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel that on 28th
    September, 2004 respondent No. 2 has assumed officer after resigning from
E   her earlier office. In the fitness of things, therefore, till fresh decision is
                                                                                           '·
    taken, she shall be premitted to continue. It is, however, made clear that by
    granting this interim protection we have not expressed any opinion on the
    merits of the case.

F          The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

    R.P.                                                      Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                       .. _
                                                                                      ._