Utt HC | Judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one; Court finds reasoning by the Single Judge cryptic, remands the case back

Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. decided on a petition which was filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the respondent-writ petitioner, M/s Kohli Enterprises, was not only blacklisted, but even its registration was cancelled by the appellants.

Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge was a non-speaking order, as it does not spell out the three factors, which were required for grant of a stay order. Therefore, the impugned order passed deserved to be set aside by this Court.

Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Manager to pass the impugned order dated 21-10-2021, and since no power of canceling a registration was granted either to the Regional Manager, or to the Managing Director, both the blacklisting, and the cancellation of the registration is patently illegal.

The Court after perusal of the impugned order noted that the Single Judge had merely observed that “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the reasons indicated in the impugned order, this Court is prima facie satisfied that petitioner has made out a case of grant of interim order”.

The Court found the reasoning given by the Single Judge cryptic as he neither discussed the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner, nor discussed the balance of convenience, nor discussed the irreparable loss that would be caused to the respondent-writ petitioner in case the stay were not granted by the Court.

The need for passing a reasoned order need not be emphasized. For, it is well known that a judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the learned Court needs to be revealed, and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated even while granting a stay order.

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to Single Judge requesting to decide the Interim Stay Application within a period of two weeks.[Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation v. Kohli Enterprises, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1313, decided on 22-11-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Counsel for the appellants. : Mr D.S. Patni, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Parikshit Saini

Counsel for the respondent. : Mr Anil Kumar Joshi

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.