BHAGWAT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-9-36
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 06,1965

BHAGWAT PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VINOD CHANDRA MAHESHWARI V/S. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR GOVINDRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.)The Petitioner is the landlord of house No. 107, Nawabganj, Muzaffarnagar, and Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the tenants thereof. The Petitioner made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for permission to file a civil suit against Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for their eviction. By his order dated December 28, 1962, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission under Sec. 3. Against this order Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision but the same was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, by his order dated August 29, 1963. Thereupon Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision Under Sec. 7F of the Act before the State Govt. By an order dated February 2, 1965 the State Govt. allowed the revision, set aside the orders, passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the application of the Petitioner for permission under Sec. 3 of the Act. It is against this order of the State Govt. that this writ petition is directed.
(2.)The only point urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner before us is that the State Government was required to act quasi judicially and it was bound to state the treasons for its order and that, since no reasons are stated in the order, the order is bad and liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. In a recent decision reported in Vinod Chandra Maheshwari v/s. State of U.P. and Anr. (1) (1965 ALJ 740) a Divwon Bench of this Court has held that Sec. 7F of the Act does not require the State Govt. to make a speaking order and that an order, which did not state the reasons therefor, was not bad. But it is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is no longer good law in view of the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Sardar Govind Rao and Ors. v/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( : AIR 1965 S.C. 1222):
The next question is whether Govt. was justified in making the order of April 26, 1955 ? That order gives no reasons at all. The Act lays upon the Govt. a duty which obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. The Appellants do not seem to have been heard at all. The Act bars a suit and there is all the more reasons that Govt. must deal with such cases in a quasi indicial manner, giving an opportunity to the claimants to state their case in the light of the report of the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellants were also entitled to know the reasons why their claim for the grant of money or a pension was rejected by Government and how they were considered as not falling within the class of persons who it was clearly intended by the Act to be compensated in this manner.

(3.)It is necessary to examine this case closely to see whether it lays down that all quasi judicial orders must state the reasons therefor.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.