UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. AAIFR
LAWS(DLH)-2001-7-173
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 31,2001

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
AAIFR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BREEN V. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION [REFERRED]
BHAGAT RAJA V. UOI [REFERRED]
ORGANO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
C B GAUTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

HEMANT PLASTICS AND CHEMICAL LIMITED VS. MAZDA AGENCIES & 12 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-192] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat - (1.)Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction New Delhi, ( in short AAIFR) in appeal No. 121/99 . The said appeal was directed against the order dated 30/7/1999 in case No. 293/87 of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( in short BIFR). The main ground of challenge in the writ petition is that without indicating any basis or reason the directions of BIFR have been substituted. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 ( ICICI Ltd) and 4 ( Nirlon Limited), on the other hand, submitted that though the order passed by AAIFR is not very explicit, yet the same was passed after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 ( in short, the Constitution) no interference is called for. It is also stated by their counsel that after waiting for a considerable length of time, the order passed by AAIFR has been given effect to and 2 property has been registered and ICICI is in the enjoyment of the property. By way of reply, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of AAIFR is dated 11/1/2000, the present writ petition was filed on 24.2.2001, while the property has been transferred much later and no equities are available to respondents 3 and 4.
(2.)The order of AAIFR, which is impugned in this writ petition, in its entirety reads as follows;
"This is an appeal against BIFR's order dated 30/7/99/19/8/1999 in case No. 293/87 regarding M/S Nirlon Ltd. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by paragraph 11 (a) of the impugned order We have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellant, the UTI and M/S Nirlon Ltd. To set the matter at rest, we set aside the BIFR'S direction in paragraph 11(a) of the impugned order and substitute it as follows:' "The second and fourth floors of the East Wing of the Nirlon House are transferred to and vested in ICICI in terms of Section 16(6A) of SICA along with proportionate rights in land and common facilities/parking area. ICICI shall pay @ Rs. 1560.00 per sq ft ( the price at which the space in this building is being offered to other occupant tenants) plus rent from the date of occupation upto today (calculated at rates keeping in view the rents paid by other tenants in the building) and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 202 lakhs already paid by ICICI, without charging any interest thereon. In case of dispute about rent the parties are free to approach BIFR for fixation of the rent."
The appeal is allowed accordingly A bare look at the order would show that it is not reasoned. We are unable to accept the stand of learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that though reasons have not been indicated, yet they are inherent.
(3.)Duty to give reasons entails a duty to rationalize the decision. Reasons therefore help to structure the exercise of discretion, and the necessity of explaining why a decision is reached. It requires one to address one's mind to be relevant factors, which ought to be taken into account. Further, furnishing reasons affords the affected party to know why a decision was reached. In C.B. Gautam v.Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78 it was observed that "the obligation to record reasons and convey the same to the party concerned operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the quasi-judicial or the executive authority invested with judicial powers". Reasons when given provide a glimpse of the decision-making process and assist the forum where the order is assailed to gauze transparency of the process. Reasons are harbingers between the mind of the decision-maker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.