Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Versus
Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7472 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7474 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO.12766 OF 2008)
Decided on : 08-09-2010
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Giving reasons – Any administrative or quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons – Only exception being an order confirming proceedings of Court Martial which need not be supported by reasons – National Commission has trappings of Civil Court – Is a high-powered quasi-judicial forum – It ought to give reasons for its decisions – Its orders must be speaking order – a (Para 14, 15, 18, 41)
1970 SC 150; AIR 1973 SC 389; AIR 1961 SC 1669; AIR 1967 SC 1606; AIR 1970 SC 1302; AIR 1971 SC 862; AIR 1973 SC 2758; AIR 1974 SC 87; AIR 1976 SC 1785; AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1979 SC 1918; (1979) 2 SCC 368; AIR 1980 SC 1; AIR 1984 SC 160; AIR 1986 SC 1173; (1990) 3 SCC 280; (1991) 2 SCC 716; (1996) 3 SCC 119; AIR 2000 SC 3138; AIR 1969 SC 414; AIR 1990 SC 1984; (1999) 1 WLR 1293; (1991) 4 All ER 310; (2002) 1 WLR 2397; (2002) 1 WLR 2409 – Relied upon
(1970) 2 WLR 1009; (1942) 87 Law Ed 626; (1975) 44 Law Ed 377 – Referred
(c) Administration of Justice – Appeal – Bank filing appeal – State Commission dismissing same without independently considering it but for the reasons given in other appeal – Bank gad a right of independent hearing which was denied – Not tenable. (Para 55)
Facts of the case:
These appeals have arisen from orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the revision petitions by very cryptic order without giving any reasons and simply affirming the order of the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned orders being non-speaking, are not sustainable.
Result:
Impugned orders set aside, matters remitted back to National Commission and State Commission.
The court underscored the fundamental principle that any administrative or quasi-judicial order must be supported by clear, detailed, and cogent reasons. This requirement is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice, transparency, and accountability in decision-making processes. Orders that lack reasons are considered non-speaking and are therefore not sustainable, as they do not demonstrate that the decision was based on relevant considerations or that the authority exercised its discretion properly (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that, with the exception of specific proceedings such as those confirming Court Martial orders—which are not mandated to provide reasons—most quasi-judicial and administrative decisions must be reasoned. This is to ensure that the decision is fair, just, and open to meaningful judicial review. The absence of reasons can lead to a presumption of arbitrariness or bias, undermining confidence in the administrative process (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court directed that the cases be remanded back to the respective forums—such as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Commissions—for fresh consideration. These forums are instructed to pass reasoned orders, explicitly stating the grounds for their conclusions. The court emphasized the importance of timely decisions, preferably within a specified period, to avoid unnecessary delays and to uphold the principles of justice (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court highlighted the right of parties to be heard independently and the necessity for authorities to consider each case on its merits with proper reasoning. This ensures that each party's case is fairly evaluated, and decisions are not made on the basis of collusion or without proper application of mind (!) (!) .
In summary, the court reaffirmed that reasoned decisions are integral to the integrity of judicial and quasi-judicial processes, serving the twin purposes of fairness and facilitating effective judicial review. Orders lacking reasons are inherently flawed and must be set aside and reconsidered with proper reasoning to maintain the rule of law and public confidence in administrative justice.
Judgment :
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, one at the instance of the builder and the other at the instance of the Corporation Bank, have been filed impugning the Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter, the said Commission).
3. In the case of the builder, the said Commission has not given any reason and dismissed the revision petition by passing a cryptic order dated 31.8.2007 which reads as under:
"Heard.
In view of the concurrent findings of the State Commission, we do not find any force in this revision petition. The revision Petition is dismissed."
4. In so far as the case of the builder is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said Commission cannot, considering the way it is structured, dismiss the revision petition by refusing to give any reasons and by just affirming the order of the State Commission.
5. The said Commission has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter CP Act) as follows:
"2(k) "National Commission" means the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established under clause (c) of Section 9;"
6. Under section 9(c) of CP Act, the said Commission has been established by the Central Government by a notification.
7. The composition of the said Commission has been provided under Section 20 of the CP Act and wherefrom it is clear that the said Commission is a high-powered adjudicating forum headed by a sitting or a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
8. Section 21 of the CP Act provides for the jurisdiction of the said Commission.
9. In order to appreciate the questions involved in this case, the provision relating to jurisdiction of the said Commission is set out hereunder:
"21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.-Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds [rupees one crore]; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
10. Under Section 23 of the CP Act, an appeal would lie against the order of the said Commission passed in exercise of its powers under Section 21(1)(a), to this Court, within 30 days, subject to extension of time by this Court on sufficient cause being shown. Under Section 21(1)(b), the said Commission exercises revisional power over orders of State Commission.
11. The power and procedure applicable to the said Commission has been provided under Section 22 of the CP Act. A perusal of Section 22(1) would show that Sections 12, 13 and 14 of CP Act, with necessary modification, are applicable to the decision making process by the said Commission. Under Section 13 of the CP Act, the District Forum has been vested, in certain matters, with the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit. Section 13(4) of CP Act is applicable to the said Commission in view of Section 22(1) thereof. Similarly, Sections 13(5), (6) and (7) will also apply to the said Commission in view of Section 22(1).
12. On a perusal of Sections 13(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the CP Act, it is clear that the said Commission has been vested with some of the powers of a Civil Court. The following powers have been vested on the said Commission:
"13(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendan
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
