S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is directed against judgment dated 31.3.2001 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation.
(2.) THE dispute in the instant petition revolves round chak no. 82 belonging to the petitioner. According to the averments in the petition, the respondent no. 3 staked claim for allotment of this Chak before the Deputy Director Consolidation by filing a revision. THE case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director Consolidation allowed the revision without regard being had to the background of the facts and without reckoning with the objection filed by the petitioner. The chequered history of the pendency of this writ petition from 2001 onwards in this Court may be noticed before proceeding further. The writ petition having been instituted, the Court granted six weeks' time on 21.5.2001 to file counter affidavit. Sri L.K. Tripathi who filed power to represent Opp. Party no. 3 was further granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. On 18.2.2003, the case had to be adjourned the illness slip having been put in on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 3. On 17.7.2003, the case again suffered adjournment on account of illness slip of learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party no. 3 on 18.12.2003, two weeks and no more time was granted to the learned counsel for the Opp. Party no.3 to file counter affidavit. Again on the request of the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party no.3, the case was adjourned on 5.2.2004. The case was again adjourned on 10.5.2004 on account of illness slip of the learned counsel representing Opp. Party no. 3. The petition came to be admitted on 15.7.2004 granting three weeks' time to the counsel for the Opp. Party to file counter affidavit. On 30.9.2004 the court was compelled to direct listing of the case peremptorily. Even thereafter on 30.10.2005, the case was adjourned on the illness slip of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 3. In the above perspective, this Court does not view with equanimity the temporizing attitude of the counsel in the matter and is constrained to decline request for further time to file counter affidavit and rules that the matter be heard today. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgment rendered by Deputy Director Consolidation arguing that it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record inasmuch as there is complete non-application of mind to the case of the petitioner in the impugned order and further that no reason is embolied in the impugned order and ultimately, it has been argued that the impugned order has occasioned great irreparable injury to the petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party urged that although no reason has been assigned for conclusion by the authority concerned but the same can be supplied by way of counter affidavit. He further submitted that it brooks no dispute that the respondent no. 3 was repeatedly granted time in the last four years to file counter affidavit and even once, stop order was passed by the Court on 18.12.2003 but it remains a fact that no counter affidavit has been filed and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner at this stage to assail the decision on the solitary ground that the impugned order is bereft of reasons.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Coming to grips with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that the reasons could be supplied by counter affidavit, I feel called to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Chief Election Commissioner1. The Apex Court in this decision was dealing with the amplitude of powers and width of functions to be exercised by Election Commission under Art. 321. In this decision, the substance of what the Apex Court held is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. It was further observed that otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time, it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. The Apex court also referred to observations made in Gordhandas Bhanji (1952 SC 16 (at p. 18) which is quoted below. "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." ;