IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No. 3383 of 2010
1. SIMA KUMARI W/O RANJIT KUMAR R/O VILL.- SAH TOLA, BENGHA,
WARD NO. 3/4, SAHARSA, P.S. AND DISTT.- SAHARSA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BLOCK- KAHRA,
DISTT.- SAHARSA
6. SHIV RAGNI DEVI W/O SHREE DEO NARAYAN SAH R/O VILL.-
BENGHA, WARD NO. 3/4, P.O.- BENGHA, P.S. AND DISTT.- SAHARSA
-----------
2. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the State.
By order dated 9.5.2008, the selection of the
petitioner as Aganwari Sewika was set aside on grounds
of residence. She questioned the same in appeal which
has been rejected by order dated 12.9.2009 of the
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a
short submission, to urge that an appellate order is
required to be reasoned and discussed, displaying
application of mind not only to the original order but also
the grounds urged to challenge the original order. There is
no discussion in the appellate order of the grounds taken
by the petitioner assailing the original order of
termination and why the appellate authority did not find
any substance or justification in the grounds of challenge.
The submission was that the attack is more on
2
procedures rather than the final order. In absence of any
reasons contained in the appellate order, it becomes
arbitrary.
Counsel for the State urged that the original
order of termination was reasoned, that the petitioner was
not a resident of the captive area.
An appellate order is required to display
proper application of mind to the issues raised, the
discussion of the original order followed by a critical
analysis of the two to arrive at its own finding based on
reasoned specified. It need not be very elaborate but must
display appreciation, understanding and conclusion.
In (2008)3 SCC 469 ( Divisional Forest Officer
Kotha Gudem & Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao ) discussing
the duties of the appellate authority, it has been held at
Paragraph 20 as follows:-
“20. It is no doubt also true that an
appellate or revisional authority is not required to
give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming
an order passed by the lower forum but, in our
view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent
officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the
appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his
appeal and/or revision. It is ture that no detailed
reasoned are required to be given, but some brief
reasons should be indicated even in an order
affirming the views of the lower forum.”
This Court therefore finds it difficult to sustain the
appellate order dated 12.9.2009 in its present form. It is
set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate
3
authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order of
his satisfaction from the materials on record, preferably
within a maximum period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, to facilitate
judicial review, should the need arise.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)