SCA/2866/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2866 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KUNDAL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PS CHAMPANERI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 15/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms. Patel, learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Mehta, for respondent No.4. SCA/2866/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is further heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order passed by the State Government in revisional jurisdiction, whereby, the revision has been dismissed. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocate appearing for both the sides including the AGP, it is apparent that no reasons whatsoever are stated by the State Government who has passed the order, except stating that the submissions are considered, record of the lower Court is examined and no case is made out for interference. The order is ex facie without recording the reasons which has weighed to the authority for rejection of the revision application. 5. It deserves to be recorded that in the present case, the State Government has not exercised administrative power, but has exercised quasi judicial power. When the power is exercised by the quasi judicial authority, the principles of natural justice demands that if not elaborative, but the reasons which weighed to the authorities for passing the final order must be stated. The aforesaid recording of the reasons would also help the higher forum to undertake the judicial scrutiny, if ultimately, challenged. Unless the reasons are recorded, it may not be possible for SCA/2866/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT the higher authority or the higher forum to know the grounds on the basis of which the final order has been passed by the quasi judicial authority. Therefore, it is expected and required for the quasi judicial authority which is the State Government in the present case to record the reasons and then to pass the order. As no reasons whatsoever are mentioned, the order being non-speaking order, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. 6. Hence, the impugned order of the State Government dated 17.01.2008 is quashed and set aside with the further direction that the Revision No.133/07 shall stand restored to the file of the State Government and the State Government after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides, shall pass appropriate orders as early as possible, preferably within one month from the receipt of the order of this Court. Until the decision is taken by the State Government and is communicated to the petitioner by Regd. A.D. Post, the status quo qua the management of the Society shall be maintained. 7. Petition allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy