Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) ASSAILING the order dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Fourth Bench, in O. A. 3166 of 2010 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads such. (Quoted from the certified copy of the impugned order). "Case No. O.A. 3166 of 2010 (LRTT) 23.03.11 Learned Counsel for the applicants is present. The Learned Government Representative is present. Learned Counsels Bappaditya Sen and Kakali Ghosh filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.5 and 6. Let the same be kept with the record. The application dated 22.12.2010 under section 10 read with section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 filed by the applicants praying for cancelling the notice dated 16.12.2010 (vide annexure 'p' to the original application) issued by the respondent No.3 B.L. & L.R.O. Matigara, District-Darjeeling is taken up for hearing on the point of admission. Perused the instant original application. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicants and Learned Government Representative. Learned Government Representative submits before this Tribunal that the instant original application should be rejected summarily as the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. was competent enough to issue notice in question. On perusal of the materials on record we find that there is/was no any illegality on the part of the B.L. & L.R.O concerned to issue notice dated 16.12.2010 and as such, the original application is rejected summarily. O.A. 3166 of 2010 is thus disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made over to the Learned Govt. Representative for communication to the authority concerned for compliance and xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for by the applicants, be delivered on payment of requisite Court fees. Sd/-P. K. Chakraborty Md. Ali Mondal" On a bare reading of the impugned order, we are not in a position to understand what was the purpose of the notice dated 16th December, 2010 issued by the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned and what was the statutory provision on the basis of which it was issued. Without making any discussion on that score, since learned Tribunal held that the notice as issued was not illegal, accordingly it appears that there was no reasoning in passing the order to reject the O.A. It is hit by the doctrine of speaking order.
(3.) 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 Sharon Varshney & Ors., reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240, the Apex 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, Kothagudemv. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469, M.R. Industries Lunited v. Union of India reported in AIR 1966 SC 671 and Seamen Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India, reported in (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, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 94 by explaining the said decision that in case of affirmation, no reason separately required to be given as held in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) which 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, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 279, since in the case Prabhu Dayal Grover (supra), 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 (supra) should be read as that the Appellate Authority should disclose briefly application of mind as without any reason it 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. Right to information and right to be informed about a reason of any decision is within the domain of Article 19(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India in terms of the views expressed by the Apex Court in the case Ravi S Naik Sanjay Bandekar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1558. It has been held in the case Manager Government Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa, reported in AIR 1970 SC 429 that administration is under a general duty to act fairly and fairness founded on reason is the essence of right and equality. Lord Denning MR in the case Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union Limited, reported in (1971) 2 QB 175 even held "it is one of the fundamental of good administration to assign a reason in the decision." In the M.P. Industries Limited (supra) case, Justice Subbarao held in considering the principle of reasoned decision that justice not only should be done but it should be felt to have been done, where reason is a must. Absence of any reason is nothing but non-application of mind is the views expressed in the case Shanti Prasad Agarwalla v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 814. In the case Steel Authority of India Limited v. S.T.O., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 407 wherein in para 17 the Court held "reason is heart bit of every conclusion. It introduces clarity and without the same it becomes lifeless". In the case State of West Bengal v. Alpana Roy, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 296 on considering the cases, namely, Breen (supra), Amalgamated Engineering Union Limited (supra) and Alexander Machinery (Dudly) Ltd. v. Crabtree, reported in 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), in para 8 the Court held "reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the unscrutable face of sphinx, it can, by its silence render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reason at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind in the matter before the Court". In Alexander Machinery (Dudly) Ltd. (supra) the Court held "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". The same view reiterated in the case Jagatamba Devi v. Hem Ram & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 509, wherein in para 10. the decision of Breen (supra) and Alexander Machinery (Dudly) Ltd. (supra) was quoted. Non-speaking order violates the principle of natural justice is the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the case S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 by holding that quasi judicial and administrative body if fails to pass any speaking order it breaches the principle of natural justice. Speaking order principle is applicable to a judicial action also as held in Smt Swamalata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1167.;