Quasi-judicial authorities must pronounce reasoned orders in open court and ensure mandatory date endorsements on certified copies for limitation purposes.

The Petitioner obtained a favorable order dated 04.07.2023 from the Joint Mamlatdar-1 for the purchase of a dwelling house under Section 16 of the Goa Mundkar Act

Respondents 2 and 3 challenged this before the Deputy Collector (Respondent 1), who passed two orders on 16.12.2023 in the "Proceeding Sheet" (Roznama) granting leave to appeal and a stay

Although the Petitioner applied for urgent certified copies immediately, the office only provided the brief Roznama orders on 02.01.2024.

After the Petitioner filed a revision before the Administrative Tribunal, Respondent 1 "voluntarily" produced a detailed, reasoned judgment dated 16.12.2023 on 06.01.2024

The Petitioner alleged that the reasoned judgment was manufactured post-facto to supplement the unreasoned Roznama order

Following High Court intervention, the Chief Secretary found serious procedural lapses and censured the officer

Whether the Deputy Collector acted with judicial impropriety by supplementing a summary Roznama order with a belatedly prepared reasoned judgment

Whether the lack of a standardized procedure for endorsing dates on certified copies by quasi-judicial authorities prejudices the statutory right of appeal and the computation of limitation

The Court applied the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, specifically Section 24 regarding appeals and Section 25 regarding revisions

It relied on Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining certified copies when computing the limitation period

The Court further emphasized Sections 74, 76, and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Sections 74, 75, and 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) concerning public documents and the genuineness of certified copies

Finally, it enforced the guidelines established in *Shri Pradeep K.R. Sangodker v. State of Goa* [WP 281/2006] and Government Circular No. 11/3/2006-LD/ESTT dated 16.10.2006 regarding the timely delivery of judgments and issuance of copies

The Court observed that the Deputy Collector’s failure to provide the reasoned judgment when the certified copy was first applied for strongly suggested the document was not ready on the date of pronouncement

The Court noted that judicial propriety requires a signed order to be available in the file the moment it is pronounced

The Court identified a systemic failure where quasi-judicial authorities issue certified copies without endorsing critical dates—such as the date of application, processing, and delivery—rendered it impossible for higher forums to accurately compute limitation or grant exclusions under Section 12 of the Limitation Act

The Court concluded that the officer’s conduct amounted to a serious procedural lapse, as confirmed by the government's internal enquiry and subsequent censure

It held that the amendments would relate back to the original filing date to avoid limitation bars

Crucially, the Court issued mandatory directions for all quasi-judicial authorities in Goa: (i) judgments must be pronounced in open court and signed immediately

(ii) original judgments must be placed in paginated files with typist details

and (iii) all certified copies must bear a standardized stamp/endorsement detailing five specific dates: application receipt, processing completion, scheduled collection, readiness, and actual delivery

The Chief Secretary was directed to circulate these instructions statewide