http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  619 of 2008

PETITIONER: Vishnu Dev Sharma

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12576 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.       2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the  Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18497 of 1994.  The  dispute related to fixation of seniority.       3.      It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail  as the writ petition was disposed of in a summary manner  observing as follows:

       \023This is a writ petition challenging the  final seniority list.

       We have heard counsel for the parties.   The seniority has been given from the date of  confirmation.  We see no illegality.  The writ  petition is dismissed.\024

4.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that such summary dismissal of writ  petition was not warranted as several issues of considerable  importance were involved, more particularly whether the  norms for fixing seniority in the background facts of the case  were to be considered.       5.      Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the  seniority list he was placed below juniors which was  impermissible.  That aspect was not considered by the High  Court.       6.      Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its  functionaries supported the order of the High Court.       7.      As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that  practically no reason was indicated.  The dismissal of the writ  petition in such summary manner without indicating any  reason is clearly indefensible.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of  reasons has rendered the High Court\022s 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 \023The giving of reasons is one of the  fundamentals of good administration\024. In Alexander Machinery  (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:  \023Failure 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\024. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The  emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals     the \023inscrutable face of the sphinx\024, 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  \023inscrutable face of a sphinx\024 is ordinarily incongruous with a  judicial or quasi-judicial performance.  9.        This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 (5)  SCC 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the  earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the  necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record  reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a  judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial  forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of  reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the  fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system,  to make known that there had been proper and due  application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as  an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. Any  judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere  fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise  the same either way does not constitute any license to exercise  it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed  by the well-known saying: \023varying according to the  Chancellor\022s foot\024. Arbitrariness has been always held to be  the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so  when such orders are amenable to challenge further before  higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary  disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be  a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the  claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is  an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a  matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know  about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also  the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.  10.     The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this  Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in  short the \021Constitution\022) and the practice of rejecting appeals  at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the  one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no  meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the  final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to  challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that  there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made  declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been on more  than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of  any party as such and it is not that any and every error is  envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article  136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court  under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and  extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has  been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the  same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed  and the order of the High Court is set aside.        11.     In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order  of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal  in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make it clear  that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the  case.