IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1927 of 2025 Krishna Bapi Raju G …. Appellant Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

Union of India and others …. Respondents Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC for Union of India Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE AND R JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN HON’BLE M

ORDER

Order No. 17.12.2025

02. 1. We are conscious of the proposition of law that the appellate Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the order passed on exercise of discretion vested in law, unless the Court finds that such exercise of discretion is irrational, unreasonable and beyond the settled legal parameters.

2. The moment the discretionary orders have challenged before the appellate Court, it is imperative on the part of the Court, at the first instance, to record brief reasons with regard to passing an interim order pending final adjudication. It would assist the appellate Court to ascertain whether the discretion exercised by the Court warrants interference or not.

3. The importance of providing the reasons has been time and again highlighted by the apex Court in a catena of decisions, including in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161, which is reiterated at a contemporaneous time in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, reported in (1994) 4 SCC

225

3.1. “Reason”, being heartbeat of every decision making process, it has been restated in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai Vrs. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 as follows:

“In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vrs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010)

9 SCC 496 this Court held that:

“12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak Vrs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC

262. ***

47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quas