IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9265 of 2008(C)
1. SATHYAN A.V,PAYYOLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :26/08/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.9265 OF 2008 (C)
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
“C.R.”
The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative
society, challenges Ext.P6. At the outset, it is
clarified that this judgment is being issued on the
main issue that Ext.P6 is a non-speaking order, leaving
open all other issues.
2. The petitioner’s employer, a co-operative society,
resolved and requested for exemption from possessing a
qualification, for the purpose of promoting the
petitioner in its service. The Registrar forwarded that
request to the Government. The Government sent impugned
Ext.P6 to the Registrar stating that it has been
decided that exemption need not be granted. It is
single line order, a cryptic one, stating no reason for
that decision.
W.P.(C) No.9265/2008
– 2 –
3. The request was for exercising a power of
exemption. To grant or not, is within the power of the
authority empowered to grant in terms of law. But, it
is of the core principles of administrative law, that a
decision has to contain its reasons. This is on
account of different reasons. One is that, if the
aggrieved person carries the matter to a higher
authority, or requests for judicial review of that
decision, fundamentally, reasons and lawful procedures
are those which will sustain the decision making
process and ultimately the decision. These principles
of administrative law, which have grown with
civilisation, have now found expression in Sections 3
and 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act”. Section 3 of the
RTI Act provides that all citizens shall have the right
to information subject to the provisions of that Act.
Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act provides that every
public authority shall provide reasons for its
administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected
W.P.(C) No.9265/2008
– 3 –
persons. Indisputably, the Government and the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies are public authorities as
defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It goes without
saying that the impugned Ext.P6 order is one which
affects the writ petitioner’s claim for promotion to
higher post, to which his employer society has agreed.
Therefore, the petitioner has the statutory right in
terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to be provided
with the reasons for the administrative decision of the
Government that has led to the issuance of Ext.P6
order. Bereft of that, Ext.P6 is issued in infraction
of that provision of the RTI Act. This, in turn,
results in Ext.P6 being an arbitrary exercise of
authority, in so far as the petitioner is concerned,
since it results in negation of the Rule of Law and
thereby, infraction of the fundamental right to
equality before law and equal protection of the laws,
guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.9265/2008
– 4 –
4. Time has come when the prestigious and salutary
principles of administrative law have found expression
in provisions like the one noticed in this judgment,
from the RTI Act. They are laws to be always remembered
and obeyed by the administrative, or other,
authorities, who are public authorities.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is
allowed, quashing Ext.P6 without expressing anything on
merits. The Government shall take up the matter and
reconsider the issue and pass fresh orders, after
affording the petitioner and his employer an
opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
skr/26/8