unreasoned order is liable to be set aside = every judicial or/and quasi­judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3448­3449 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7837­7838 of 2014)
Kushuma Devi ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sheopati Devi (D) & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

  1. Leave granted.
  2. These appeals are filed against the final
    judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 in CMWP No.
    1
    3231 of 2002 and order dated 16.01.2013 in CMRA
    No.247546 of 2013 passed by the High Court of
    Judicature at Allahabad.
  3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
    disposal of these appeals which involve a short
    point.
  4. The appellant filed an eviction petition against
    the respondents being Misc. Case No. 18/1990. By
    order dated 19.04.1996, the Civil Judge decreed the
    suit and passed the decree for eviction against the
    respondents. The respondents felt aggrieved and
    filed Rent Appeal No. 4/1996 in the Court of A.D.J.,
    Court No.8, Fatehpur. The first Appellate Court by
    order dated 04.12.2001 allowed the appeal and
    dismissed the eviction petition filed by the
    appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed a
    writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. By
    impugned order dated 27.07.2012, the High Court
    dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order
    2
    dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional District
    Judge, Court No.8, Fatehpur in the absence of the
    appellant. The appellant filed an application for
    recall of the order dated 27.07.2012. The High
    Court by order dated 16.01.2013 dismissed the said
    application. The appellant felt aggrieved by the said
    orders and has filed these appeals by way of special
    leave in this Court.
  5. The impugned order reads as under :
    “Having gone through the impugned order, I
    do not find any patent illegality or
    irregularity therein warranting interference.
    Findings of fact have been recorded which
    have not been shown perverse or contrary to
    material on record. I, therefore, do not find
    any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial
    review under Article 227 is very limited and
    narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in
    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27433 of 1991
    (Lala Ram Narain vs. Xth Additional District
    Judge, Moradabad & Ors.) decided on
    13.07.2012. There is nothing which may
    justify judicial review of order impugned in
    this writ petition in the light of exposition of
    law, as discussed in the above judgment.”
  6. The short question, which arises for
    consideration in these appeals, is whether the
    3
    aforementioned impugned order is legally
    sustainable or not.
  7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
    parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
    are constrained to allow these appeals, set aside the
    impugned orders and remand the case to the High
    Court for deciding the appellant’s writ petition
    afresh on merits in accordance with law.
  8. The need to remand the case to the High Court
    has occasioned because from the perusal of the
    impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we
    find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words,
    the High Court neither discussed the issues arising
    the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions
    urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as
    to why it has dismissed the writ petition.
  9. This Court has consistently laid down that
    every judicial or/and quasi­judicial order passed by
    the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which
    4
    decides the lis between the parties, must be
    supported with the reasons in support of its
    conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the
    appellate/revisionary Court while examining the
    correctness of the order are entitled to know as to
    on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at
    in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the
    reasons and the findings on the submissions urged,
    it is not possible to know as to what led the
    Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such
    conclusion. (See ­ State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal
    Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar
    Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC
    222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10
    SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar &
    Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs.
    Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568).
    5
  10. The orders impugned in these appeals suffer
    from the aforesaid error, because, as would be clear
    from the perusal of the order, the High Court while
    passing the impugned order simply dismissed the
    writ petition without any discussion, finding and
    the reason.
  11. We are, therefore, of the view that such order
    is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be
    set aside.
  12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
    succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned
    orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the
    High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out
    of which these appeals arise, for its disposal in
    accordance with law keeping in view the
    observations made above.
  13. Since we have formed an opinion to remand
    the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on
    merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the
    6
    merits of the case while deciding these appeals. The
    High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition
    uninfluenced by any observations made by this
    Court in this order as expeditiously as possible
    preferably within six months.
    .……………………………………..J.
    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ……………………………………….J.
    [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
    New Delhi;
    April 08, 2019
    7