- (1.) Assailing the order dated 8th July, 2010 passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O. A. 1981 of 2009 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads such: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is present. Learned Government Representative is also present. The application date 25.08.09 under Section 10 of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 filed by the applicant praying for giving direction to the Respondent authorities to cancel/set aside the notice date 15.07.09 being annexure 'A' of this application is taken up for hearing on the point of admission. Perused the instant application. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Government Representative. Learned Government Representative submits that the instant original application should be rejected summarily as the same is misconceived one. On perusal of materials on record, we find nothing to admit the instant original application. As a result of it, the original application is rejected summarily. O. A. No. 1981 of 2009 (LRTT) is thus disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the principal officer of the Tribunal be made over to the learned Government. Representative for communication to the B. L. and L. R. O. concerned for information and xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for by the applicant, be delivered subject to payment of requisite Court-fees.
(2.) On a bare reading of the order it appears that the learned Tribunal below rejected the original application summarily only with the finding that the application was misconceived. No reason assigned why the application was misconceived. It is the case of the writ Petitioner before us that against the dead persons the barga recording proceeding was initiated and despite filing of the names of the legal heirs, the revenue officer did not add those legal heirs as a party in the proceeding and serve fresh notice. Against that, he filed the application before the Tribunal.
(3.) Considering the order impugned, we are of the view that the order is vitiated for breach of principle of reasoned order. Each and every order must be with specific reason is a settled legal position of the law. Judgments on that field are as follows: It is the basic principle of law that every order passed by any administrative body or any quasi judicial body and/or even by the judicial body must disclose the reason of the order so that the person concerned who is affected thereby may approach the higher forum and/or higher Court assailing the decision thereof. In the case Chairman, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Ors., 2009 4 SCC 240, the Court held that "reason must be given by the appellate or revisional authority even when affirming the impugned decision". Reliance was placed in that case, the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem v. Madhusudan Rao, 2008 3 SCC 469, M. R. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1966 AIR(SC) 671 and Seamen Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1976 2 SCC 981. In that case the Court explained and discussed the contra decision passed in the case S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1990 4 SCC 594 by explaining the said decision that in case of affirmation, no reason separately required to be given as held in S. N. Mukherjee should be read as an observation meaning thereby that order of affirmation need not contain any elaborate reasoning as contained in original order, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reason need not be given in order of affirmance. The Court further explained in that case the earlier case of State of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, 1995 6 SCC 279, since in the case Probhu Dayal Grover, it was observed that for affirmative order there was no necessity of giving any reason to this effect that the observation of the Prabhu Dayal Grover should be read as that the appellate authority should disclose briefly application of mind as without any reason cannot be satisfied. It has been further held at least that brief reason should be given so that one can know that the appellate authority has applied his mind.;