Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R.S. Jadaun, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, Annexure -5 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 19.3.2003 which has not been served on the petitioner. It appears that the father of the petitioner was working in the respondent -bank and died in harness and after his voluntary retirement, the petitioner claimed appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The application was processed and No Objection Certificate was also submitted but no orders have been passed. Then the petitioner filed a representation to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders. The petitioner submits that an order was communicated to the petitioner on 4.4.2003 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by a non -speaking and unreasoned order. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the basis of a letter dated 19.3.2003 sent by regional office mentioned therein that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for the reason that the financial problem of the family is adequate, therefore, as per the guidelines, no appointment can be made. Sri Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is an order of non -application of mind without assigning any reason, therefore, is liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of M/S Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. reported in : AIR 1971 SC 862 and has relied upon paragraphs 7 and 11 which are quoted below: 7. The question raised before the Collector of Customs was of a complicated nature and for its proper appreciation required familiarity with the chemical composition and physical properties of nitro -cellulose lacquers and of the substance produced by the appellant Company. The Collector in deciding the appeal wrote an order running into 18 typed pages. There were before the Collector conflicting opinions of the Chemical Examiner and the Silk Mills Research Association, Bombay. The Collector gave two personal hearings to the Appellant Company. No personal hearing was given by the Government of India to the appellant Company even though the matter raised complex questions. It is true that the rules do not require that personal hearing shall be given, but, if in appropriate cases where complex and difficult questions requiring familiarity with technical problems are raised, personal hearing is given it would conduce to better administration and more satisfactory disposal of the grievances of citizens. The order does not disclose the name or designation of the authority of the Government of India who considered "the points made by the applicants", and it is impossible to say whether the officer was familiar with the subject -matter so that he could decide the dispute without elucidation and merely on a perusal of the papers. The form in which the order was communicated is apparently a printed form. There is a bare assertion by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in his communication that the Government of India had "carefully considered the points made by the applicants", there is no evidence as to who considered the "points" and what was considered. The Central Government is by Section 36 invested with the judicial power of the State. Orders involving important disputes are brought before the Government. The orders made by the Central Government are subject to appeal to this Court under Article of the Constitution. It would be impossible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article , to decide the dispute without a speaking order of the authority, setting out the nature of the dispute, the arguments in support thereof raised by the aggrieved party and reasonably disclosing that the matter received due consideration by the authority competent to decide the dispute. Exercise of the right to appeal to this Court would be futile, if the authority chooses not to disclose the reasons in support of the decision reached by it. A party who approaches the Government in exercise of a statutory right, for adjudication of a dispute is entitled to know at least the official designation of the person who has considered the matter, what was considered by him, and the reasons for recording a decision against him. To enable the High Court or this Court to exercise its constitutional powers, not only the decision, but an adequate disclosure of materials justifying an inference that there has been a judicial consideration of the dispute by an authority competent in that behalf in the light of the claim made by the aggrieved party, is necessary. If the Officer acting on behalf of the Government chooses to give no reasons, the right of appeal will be devoid of any substance. 11. In this case the communication from the Central Government gave no reasons in support of the order; the appellant Company is merely intimated thereby that the Government of India did not see any reasons to interfere "with the order in appeal". The communication does not disclose the "points" which were considered and the reasons for rejecting them. This is a totally unsatisfactory method of disposal of a case in exercise of the judicial power vested in the Central Government. Necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached in cases where a non -judicial authority exercises judicial functions, is obvious. When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds: one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous: the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not able to dispute the said analogy as submitted by Sri Budhwar before this Court.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record it appears that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason. It is well settled in law that the administrative authorities are bound to record reasons while dismissing the claim of a person. If no reason has been recorded , there will be a presumption in law that the order is an order of non -application of mind.;