SC REMANDS MATTER TO HIGH COURT TO DECIDE AFRESH: 'JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN ABSENCE OF REASONING"

The Supreme Court in the case State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board And Ors. Versus Saroj Maurya And Ors observed that no decision could be legally sustainable in the absence of a reasoning.

- 

The court in the case observed and has set aside the order of High Court Division bench which was rendered casually without furnishing any reasons therefor.

The Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the decision of single-judge decision did not express its view on the issues and the court rather concluded that the Division Bench was in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.

The counsel, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. appearing for the State of UP submitted before the court that the Division Bench committed an error while upholding the decision of the Single Bench without assigning any reasons and not considering the Government Orders and the Circulars which is being issued by the appellants which ought to have been taken into consideration while providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellants or State of UP.

While considering the judgement in the case CCT v. Shukla & Bros., the bench comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case opined that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained.