Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Raksha Ram – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petition and orders (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding non-speaking orders (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on speaking orders (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. judicial precedents on necessity of reasons (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's decision to intervene (Para 21) |
| 6. outcome and order of the court (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for caveator/opposite party no. 4.
2. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, on being asked, learned counsel for caveator/opposite party no. 4 says that he would not file the counter affidavit and he would argue the case on merits. Considering the same, this Court proceeds to decide the present petition on merits at admission stage.
3. Instant petition has been filed with following main prayer:
Quasi-judicial authorities must record detailed reasons for decisions, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary action.
A quasi-judicial authority must provide a reasoned order to ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making.
It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons ....
A mere recital of vague reasons would not be sufficient nor a matter like the present one where the aggrieved party has a right to know the reasons for the decision being taken either for or against ....
Point of Law : in absence of prescription of any specific period of limitation in a statute, the remedies cannot be said to be available to a party to assail an order passed under such Act at its whi....
The necessity of providing clear reasoning in decision-making is critical for judicial integrity and transparency, ensuring just outcomes in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.
The necessity of providing reasons in appellate decisions is crucial for ensuring judicial accountability, transparency, and fairness.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned and speaking orders to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decision-making.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
