HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.401 OF 2024

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam(‘Special Court’ for brevity) in I.A.No.253 of 2023 in O.S.No.270 of 2023 wherein and whereby the Special Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Bodla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent herein filed O.S.No.270 of 2023 against the petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property along with application for ad-interim injunction vide I.A.No.253 of 2023 and the Special Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 granted interim injunction without recording any reasons and contrary to the procedure provided under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC. He would further submit that the order passed by the Special Court is bereft of reasons and therefore, same is unsustainable in view of non-compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the revision may be disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Special Court by setting aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, for passing a reasoned order by affording opportunity to both the parties.

5. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the Special Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction without recording any reason and in fact, there is no discussion as to whether the respondent has made out a case and that three principles for granting ad-interim injunction were satisfied.

6. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions.

7. In M/S Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below.

“(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 life blood 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 quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is imp