2011 Supreme(SC) 774

2011 (8) Supreme 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5374 of 2005
Decided on : 16-8-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Government.
2. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government.

Headnote:U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1972 - Section 4-Appeal against legality of direction given by High Court to State Government to pay an amount of Rs.70,99,951.50 with interest to the respondents, placing reliance on an inter-departmental communication sent by District Magistrate, Haridwar to the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh-Held Non-application of mind was writ large in the order of the High Court, not even an attempt or effort had been made to refer to pleadings of parties or examine the documents produced, in spite of the fact that those materials were on record- High Court had failed to note that ‘ R’ was an unauthorised occupant of land since 27.11.1972 and that finding had attained finality - State Government had rightly rejected the recommendations made by District Magistrate for payment of Rs.70,99,951.50 because while doing so, concerned officer conveniently ignored the fact that R had already been declared as unauthorised occupant of the land in question- In the face of decision taken by State Government, High Court could not have relied upon recommendations made by District Magistrate by treating the same as an order of State Government- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed (Paras 17 to 20)

        Judicial decisions-Recording of reasons ,essential element of- Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of evidence adduced and application of legal procedure- The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided- Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning- Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency- The statement of reasons makes the decision easier for the parties to understand- The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system (Para 15)

        Noting-Scope and ambit of-A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more- It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual- By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government- Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of matter under consideration, same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2)- The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2)- A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review (Para 19)

       Facts of the Case :

        A.Present Appeal has been filed against legality of direction given by High Court to State Government to pay an amount of Rs.70,99,951.50 with interest to the respondents, placing reliance on an inter-departmental communication sent by District Magistrate, Haridwar to the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

       Findings of the Court :

        A.The Court held that non-application of mind was writ large in the order of the High Court as not even an attempt or effort had been made to refer to pleadings of parties or examine the documents produced, in spite of the fact that those materials were on record. High Court had failed to note that ‘ R’ was an unauthorised occupant of land since 27.11.1972 and that finding had attained finality .

        B. State Government had rightly rejected the recommendations made by District Magistrate for payment of Rs.70,99,951.50 because while doing so, concerned officer conveniently ignored the fact that R had already been declared as unauthorised occupant of the land in question. In the face of decision taken by State Government, High Court could not have relied upon recommendations made by District Magistrate by treating the same as an order of State Government.

        C. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed