Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
West Bengal College Service Commission through its Chairman and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sri. Sanjib Mukhopadhyay and Others – Respondents
C.A.N. No. 7633 of 2019, M.A.T. No. 1025 of 2019
Decided On : 21-8-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Ms. Bandana Das.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed.
A judgment should contain reasons for the decision and consider all relevant documents and pleadings before reaching a conclusion.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Writ Petition - Lack of Reasons in Judgment
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against an order allowing a writ petition due to the failure of the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition as directed by the court. The appellant contested the finding, claiming that the affidavit had indeed been filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment lacked reference to the pleaded cases, issues of fact and law, and reasons for the decision, which was considered a disservice to the justice delivery system. The court also discovered that the affidavit-in-opposition had been filed but inadvertently overlooked by the learned Judge.
Issues: Lack of reasons in the judgment, failure to consider the affidavit-in-opposition, and the need for a remand to consider the case pleaded in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment should contain reference to pleaded cases, issues of fact and law, and reasons for the decision. Failure to consider relevant documents may lead to a remand for further consideration.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, ordered a remand, and requested the learned Judge to consider the case pleaded in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition and decide the controversy in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. This intra-court writ appeal is directed against an order dated 2nd July, 2019 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby a writ petition [W.P. 19942 (W) of 2009] presented by the respondent no. 1 was allowed by granting orders in terms of prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ as well as prayer ‘c’. Such an order was made by the learned Judge upon formation of opinion that the West Bengal College Service Commission and its Secretary, respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, had not filed an affidavit-in-opposition for the same being considered by His Lordship despite direction to that effect having been passed in 2010. The order under appeal did notice that a previous order dated 29th January, 2018 of a learned Judge recorded that the respondents 3 and 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, but His Lordship did not find copy of such affidavit in the records.
2. Although it is true that by application of the doctrine of non traverse statements made in a writ petition could be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents, such doctrine is attracted only when the pleadings are such that grant of relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is only a matter of course. The impugned order does not contain any finding that the writ petitioners, by their own pleading, had set up such a strong case.
3. In our considered opinion, a judgment rendered on a writ petition ought to at least contain a reference to the pleaded cases, the issues of fact and law emerging for decision and the reasons as to why the Court considers it fit and proper to either allow the writ petition or dismiss it. It is well recognized in law that the reasons form the bridge between the mind of the Judge and the conclusion recorded by him. Applying the twin test of “why” (i.e., the reasons) and “what” (i.e. the conclusions) to a judgment, the reasons form the “why” for the “what” to stand on. The impugned order, we regret, does not satisfy the twin test of “why” and “what”. It amounts to a great dis-service to the justice delivery system if the reasons, which are the soul and spirit of the judgment, are lacking.
4. At this juncture, we find the decision in Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust vs. Union of India, (2012) 10 SCC 734 to be apt. The Supreme Court observed:
“Brevity in judgment writing has not lost its virtue. All long judgments or orders are not great nor brief orders are always bad. What is required of any judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. A slopshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that comes to the court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves.”
5. Since the order under appeal does not satisfy the test indicated above, it is one ground for our interference in exercise of our appellate power.
6. There is also one other weighty reason for our interference.
7. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the appellant/applicant at the hearing of the application for stay had contested the finding of the learned Judge by vehemently contending that an affidavit-in-opposition had indeed been filed on 29th January, 2018, when the writ petition was restored to its original file and number upon recall of an order dismissing it for default by Hon’ble Arindam Sinha, J.
8. To unearth the truth, we had adjourned hearing of the application for stay and requisitioned the records of the writ petition from the department. The records have now been placed before us. It appears therefrom that an affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed as far back as on 21st September, 2010, is on record.
9. In view of the fact that the learned Judge inadvertently did not look into the affidavit-in- opposition, we have no other option but to set aside the order impugned and order a remand. It is ordered accordingly. This would result in revival of the writ petition.
10. The lea
