Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5687 of 2000
PETITIONER:
U.O.I. and Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Jai Prakash Singh and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/03/2007
BENCH:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent
no.1.
2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice:
3. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court
alleging that he was not granted permission to operate Gramin PCO and his
prayer was that he should have been granted such permission. Appellants who
were the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition took the stand that
according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Communication one Gramin
PCOI (described in the guidelines as Village Public Telephone, in short the
’VPT’) already existing in the concerned village and, therefore, the prayer
of the writ petitioner could not be accepted in view of the guidelines. The
High Court by a cryptic non-reasoned order held that the conditions in the
guidelines "appear to be arbitrary" and hence violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ). Accordingly
direction was granted to allot a VPT to the writ petitioner within the
stipulated time.
4. Appellants have challenged the order on the ground that no reason has
been indicated as to why the guidelines were found to be illegal/arbitrary
under the national Communication Policy, 1994; Department of
Telecommunication is providing VPT. One VPT is provided in a Revenue
village. There are nearly 60,77,491 village in the country. By 31.3.1999,
therefore, 3,40,640 villages, which, have been provided with VPT’s and
remaining villages were to be provided VPT’s progressively by March, 2002 .
In UP (Eastern) Telecom Circle, there are nearly 75,698 villages, out of
which 29,970 villages have been provided with VPT’s and rest about 45,000
villages were to be provided with VPT’s. It is pointed out that after all
the villages are provided with public telephones, additional PCOs can be
provided depending upon technical feasibility and demand. The difference
between VPT and PCO is that the call charges made from a VPT are less than
those from PCO. Also the commission to the operative custodian of a VPT is
higher that that payable to a PCO operator custodian. The commission is
percentage of revenue depending on the call charges. It was also submitted
that the department did not have adequate resources to provide more than
one VPT in a village under the VPT programme. However, wherever technically
feasible, second and subsequent public telephone can be provided which
shall be at the cost of the applicant. Without indicating any reason as to
how the guidelines were arbitrary, the High Court has issued the
directions.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1 who was the
writ petitioner.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
6. We find that 1994 guidelines have been amended from tie to time and
clarifications have been issued subsequently on 8.12.1998 and 9.3.1999. it
appears that for installation of VPT, define role assigned to the Gram
Panchayat. The guidelines of 8.12.1988 stipulate that the Gram Panchayat
will recommend only one VPT in a village and the question of multiple cases
does not arise. In case of any dispute, the case is to be discussed with
Panchayats and resolves. The recommendations for extension/location are to
be given by the Panchayat or the BDO as the case may be.
7. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, without
indicating any reason, the High Court has described the policy to be
arbitrary. Interestingly, the writ petitioner had not challenged the
legality of the policy. In fact, he was claiming benefit under the policy.
Unfortunately, the High Court travelled beyond the pleadings. It did not
grant any opportunity to the present appellant to file even counter
affidavit and by a non-reasoned order struck down the policy. The order of
the High Court has been stayed by this Court on 1.9.1999.
8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of
justice , the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever
brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more
when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of
reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v.
Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971] 1 All E.R. 1148 observed "The giving
of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120 it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live
links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if
the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the 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, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that
the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of
the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
the order made, in other words, a speaking out. the "inscrutable face of a
sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
performance.
10. The inevitable conclusion is that the impugned order of the High Court
is unsustainable and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.