Holding

A non‑reasoned order that fails to articulate reasons and goes beyond the pleadings is unsustainable and must be set aside.

Summary

The writ petitioner sought permission to operate a Gramin PCO (Village Public Telephone) and the Allahabad High Court, in a non‑reasoned order, held that the Ministry of Communications' guidelines were arbitrary and violative of Article 14, directing the allotment of a VPT. The appellants appealed, contending that the High Court gave no reasons, went beyond the pleadings, and denied the petitioner an opportunity to file a counter‑affidavit. The Supreme Court observed that reasons are essential for clarity, natural justice, and judicial review, and that a non‑reasoned order is unsustainable. It noted that the petitioner had not challenged the policy's legality but merely claimed its benefit. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Allahabad High Court's non‑reasoned order striking down the VPT guidelines as arbitrary is legally sustainable.
Whether the guidelines under the National Communication Policy, 1994, are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues not raised in the writ petition and by denying the appellants a chance to file a counter‑affidavit.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

non‑reasoned orderreasons in judicial ordersnatural justiceArticle 14judicial reviewadministrative lawGramin PCOVillage Public Telephonehigh court overreach

Judgment

U.O.l. AND ORS . A
.-- ~ v.
JAi PRAKASH SINGH AND ANR.

MARCH 8, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Judgment/Order:

Non-reasoned order-Writ Petitioner claiming benefit under a policy-
High Court without indicating reasons describing the policy to be arbitrary-- c
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
contended before High Court that a Gramin PCO described in the guidelines
D
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
be given by the Panchayat or the BDO as the case may be. !Para 6]
B [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)

3.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration
D 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
system, reason at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the
G
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 and Order dated 17.3.1999 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in C.M. W.P.No. I 0275 of I 999.

T.S. Doabia, Sunita Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ
petition filed by respondent no. I.

2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice:
c
3. Respondent no. I filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court
alleging that he was not granted permission to operate Gramin PCO and his
prayer was that he should have been granted such permission. Appellants
who were the respondents I to 4 in the writ petition took the stand that D
according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Communication one Gramin
PCOI (described in the guidelines as Village Public Telephone, in short the
'VPT') already existing in the concerned village and, therefore, the prayer of
the writ petitioner could not be accepted in view of the guidelines. The High
Court by a cryptic non-reasoned order held that the conditions in the guidelines E
"appear to be arbitrary" and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, I 950 (in short the Constitution ). Accordingly direction was granted
to allot a VPT to the writ petitioner within the stipulated time.

4. Appellants have challenged the order on the ground that no reason
has been indicated as to why the guidelines were found to be illegal/arbitra,ry F
under the national Communication Policy, 1994; Department of
Telecommunication is providing VPT. One VPT is provided in a Revenue
village. There are nearly 60,77,491 village in the country. By 31.3.1999, therefore,
3,40,640 villages, which, have been provided with VPT's and remaining villages
were to be provided VPT's progressively by March, 2002 . In UP (Eastern)
Telecom Circle, there are nearly 75,698 villages, out of which 29,970 villages G
have been provided with VPT's and rest about 45,000 villages were to be
> provided with VPT's. It is pointed out that after all the villages'are provided
with public telephones, additional PCOs can be provided depending upon
technical feasibility and demand. The difference between VPT and PCO is that
the call charges made from a VPT are Jess than those from PCO. Also the H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A commission to the operative custodian of a VPT is higher that that payable
to a PCO operator custodian. The commission is percentage of revenue
depending on the call charges. It was also submitted 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
B subsequent public telephone can be provided which shall be at the cost of
the applicant. Without indicating any reason as to how the guidelines were
arbitrary, the High Court has issued the directions.

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1 who was
the writ petitioner.
c 6. We find that 1994 guidelines have been amended from tie to time and
clarifications have been issued subsequently on 8.12 .1998 and 9.3 .1999. it
appears that for installation ofVPT, define role assigned to the Gram Panchayat.
The guidelines of8.12.1988 stipulate that the Gram Panchayat will recommend
only one VPT in a village and the question of multiple cases does not arise.
..
D In case of any dispute, the case is to be discussed with Panchayats and
resolves. The recommendations for extension/location are to be given by the
Panchayat or the BOO as the case may be.

7. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, without
indicating any reason, the High Court has described the policy to be arbitrary.
E Interestingly, the writ petitioner had not challenged the legality of th•~ policy.
In fact, he was claiming benefit under the policy. Unfortunately, the High
Court travelled 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
F Court on I. 9.1999.
8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of
justice , the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever 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
G rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.

9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen
v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971] I All E.R. 1148 observed "The-
giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120 it was
H
U.O.l. V. JAi PRAKASH SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 761

observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are A
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 B
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,
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 C
out. the "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial
or quasi-judicial performance.

I 0. The inevitable conclusion is that the impugned order of the High
Court is unsustainable and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed.

)