IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1529 of 2002. Date of Decision: 27th March,2008. Hans Raj Chauhan …… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The petitioner has challenged the appellate order passed by the Secretary (Cooperation), Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising powers under Section 93 (g) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 96335/- which, according to the petitioner had been illegally ordered to be recovered from him. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - The entire facts need not be considered in detail save and except that the appellant was working with respondent No. 3 and enquiry was ordered under Section 67 of the Act into the constitution, working and financial condition of respondent No. 2. On conclusion of the enquiry, respondent No. 2 ordered surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act against the petitioner. Order dated 9.1.2002 (Annexure PH) was passed by the Registrar Co- operative Societies ordering recovery of the amount(s) from the petitioner against which a detailed appeal was filed (Annexure P-I), raising a number of grounds assailing the order. The Secretary (Cooperative) vide Annexure P-J rejected the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a number of submissions touching the merits of the case. These grounds are not being gone into as the petition has been disposed of on the ground that the appellate authority being a statutory authority constituted under the Act, has disposed of the appeal with a one paragraph judgment holding that the arguments of the leaned counsel for the appellant were heard in detail, record of the case examined in detail and there was nothing illegal in the order in appeal (Annexure P-J) which was dismissed. It is by now well settled that even if there is a judgment of concurrence by a statutory appellate authority, some reasons although brief are required to be given for not accepting the contention of the appellant/petitioner before such authority, so that, such reasons may disclose working of the mind of the authority. - 3 - Detailed and elaborate reasons may not be required but what is necessary is that the authority must disclose its mind on the acceptance or rejection of the case more especially when detailed grounds have been taken challenging the validity of an order. In S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:- “35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by - 4 - considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand point of policy and expediency. 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. 'the said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The - 5 - appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such art order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.” (emphasis supplied) Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and others AIR 1966 SC 671, has held that the principles applicable for courts of law where appeals/revisions are dismissed in limine without giving elaborate reasons cannot apply to Tribunal as courts of law are different from Tribunals etc. The court held:- “9………..There is an essential distinction between a court and an administrative tribunal. A Judge is trained to look at things objectively, uninfluenced by consideration of policy or expediency; but an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand-point of policy and expediency. The habit of mind of an executive officer so formed cannot be expected to change from function to function or from act to act. So it is essential that some restrictions shall be imposed on tribunals in the matter of passing orders affecting the rights of parties; and the least they should do is to give reasons for their orders. Even in the case of appellate Courts invariably reasons are given, except when they dismiss an appeal or revision in limine and that is - 6 - because the appellate or revisional court agrees with the reasoned judgment of the subordinate court or there are no legally permissible grounds to interfere with it. But the same reasoning cannot apply to an appellate tribunal, for as often as not the order of the first tribunal is laconic and does not give any reasons. That apart, when we insist upon reasons, we do not prescribe any particular form or scale of the reasons. The extent and the nature of the reasons depend upon each case. Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly; but in a case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those reasons. What is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case………..” In The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. The Union of India and another (1976) 2 SCC 981, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated the fact that it is settled principle of law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. This judgment need not be burdened with more precedents as the principle of law is now well settled. It is undisputed before me that the cash recovery has been ordered from the petitioner and the order visits the petitioner with civil consequences. It is also undisputed that the grounds of - 7 - appeal Annexure P-H are detailed in every respect. The order Annexure P-J is a terse in one paragraph deciding the entire appeal. Of course, prior to that, the appellate authority purportedly notices the facts and submissions made. How the submissions are relevant or not or the grounds negate the charges against the appellant is not clear. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-J is quashed and set aside. The Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh. Needless to say that the matter relates to the year 1998, the appeal will be disposed of expeditiously and in accordance with the established principles of law. A direction is issued to the first respondent to issue notice to the parties for a date on which they shall be present before him. There shall be no order as to costs. 27th March, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.