Case: M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan

In view of the concurrent findings of the State Commission, we do not find any force in this revision petition. The revision Petition is dismissed4. In so far as the case of the builder is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said Commission cannot, considering the way it is structured, dismiss the revision petition by refusing to give any reasons and by just affirming the order of the State Commission.

Reasoning:
51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudiciallyl authority must record reasons in support of its conclusionsc. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as welld. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial andl or even administrative powere. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerationsf. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial,l and even by administrative bodiesg. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courtsh. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justicel opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants faith in the justice delivery systemj. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparencyk. If a Judge or al authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalisml. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons orp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision making processn. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 andAnya vs. University of, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisionso. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of Due Process.