Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Abhaw Grasth Dalit Mahila Sewa Shansthan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 26351 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10343 (4 June 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



By means of the present writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a society which is registered and certificate to that effect has been issued in favour of the petitioner.  

On the basis of the direction issued by the higher authorities, the petitioner has worked and has completed the work well in time.  The petitioner has submitted a detailed will and expenses of amount of the work done by the petitioner.  The work of the petitioner as well as the entire amount of expenses of work from 15.9.2003 to 31.3.2004 has been approved  but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the payment has not been made.  

Surprisingly enough an order dated 25.1.2007 has been passed holding therein that the petitioner is not entitled for payment.

It has been submitted by the petitioner that order dated 25.1.2007 is an order without assigning any reason, therefore, it is an order of non-application of mind, as such, the order dated 25.1.2007 is liable to be quashed  only on the ground of non-assigning any reason.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The learned Standing Counsel is also not able to substantiate the finding recorded by the respondents in the order dated 25.1.2007.  It is now well settled that administrative authority is also bound to record reasons while passing the order because if the reasons have not been given the order will be treated to be an order without application of mind.  In Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in S.N.Mukherji Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has been held that the Administrative Authority is bound to record reasons while deciding the claim of a person.  If no reasons have been recorded, then it will be treated that the order is an order of non application of mind.

I have gone through the order.  Only two lines have been mentioned that the bills and other documents have been perused and it is found that petitioner is not entitled for payment.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the order dated 25.1.2007 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 to pass a detailed and reasoned order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, if possible, within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.  



W.P.No.26351 of 2007


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.