Speaking Order

Order for placement of a citizen on PCL cannot be issued in a mechanical fashion without recording reasons and stating grounds applicable to the circumstances of the citizen in terms of R. 23(6) read with R.21 of Passports Rules, 2021

Unless a penal order directing that passport of a citizen be impounded, confiscated, cancelled or inactivated is passed while identifying relevant grounds that mandate that the citizen's right to liberty and travel ought to be interfered with in accordance with law, such order would not be sustainable in the eyes of law

It is only where an order finding that a citizen's passport is liable to be impounded, confiscated, cancelled or inactivated has been so passed, can the relevant Division of Federal Government and Directorate General, Immigration and Passport discharge their ministerial function of placing name of such individual on PCL in terms of R. 22(2) of Passport Rules, 2021.

Statutory authority dealing with rights of people whether exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, while passing any order under any statute, is required to give reasons for passing that order

Reasons must confirm that statutory authority while passing an order has considered the matter as required by statute conferring power to it to pass such order and it is satisfied that the circumstances exist which are prerequisite for passing such order

Such reasons must be reflected from the contents of the order

Any vague order of a statutory authority, though authorized under the law to pass the order, is nullity in the eye of law.

Public functionaries are bound to dilate upon all aspects of the matters presented before them, while determining rights of the parties, and decide the same after application of mind, assigning cogent reasons and passing speaking orders.

Parameters as enshrined under S.24A of General Clauses Act, 1897, with regard to exercise of discretion by an executive authority for giving reasons for its decision are mandatory

Any action taken by an executive authority in violation of such principle is liable to be struck down.

Observation/comments "allowed as rules as per law" could, by no stretch of imagination, be called as an order and if it was presumed as an order then it did not qualify the test of a speaking order in terms of S.24-A of the General Clauses Act.

Every judicial or quasi-judicial finding should be based on reasons containing justification for the finding in order itself.

Tribunal and quasi-judicial authorities are under legal obligation to give plausible reason, absence whereof can render the order liable to judicial chastisement

Courts and quasi-judicial authorities should record reason for their conclusion to enable aggrieved party/appellant or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction properly and in accordance with law

Reasoning alone can enable a higher or appellate Court to appreciate controversy in issue in its correct and true perspective and to hold whether conclusion recorded by Court, whose order is assailed, is sustainable in law and whether subordinate Court has adopted a correct legal approach

To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, it is essential that Court should record detailed reasons for their conclusion and decide the matter through a speaking order

Stating a reason by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities is a well-accepted norm and its compliance is stated to be mandatory.

Section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 binds down even the Executive to assign reasoning and pass speaking order, while determining rights of parties.

Speaking order especially by an appellate authority should have the ingredients viz point in issue; stance taken by the parties; finding rendered by the forum below; grounds of assailing an order; independent findings based upon reasons and the final result of the appeal.

Authority deciding the matter had to discuss the issue and thereafter to give its own view and findings on that issue and thereafter either to allow or to dismiss the matter before it by giving cogent reasons

Authority, in the present case, had failed to discuss reasons in the impugned order which had rendered the same not sustainable

Impugned order did not appear to be a sound order

Any order in violation of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 could not be considered to be an order in accordance with law

Impugned order did not fulfill the requirements of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 which was set aside

Matter was remanded to the authority for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties through a well-reasoned and speaking order by giving valid reasons for accepting or rejecting the contentions raised before it

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Authority exercising statutory powers of adjudication/assessment or appeal affecting valuable rights of parties should act as quasi-judicial authority and while exercising such powers must pass a speaking order duly supported by reasoning showing due application of mind and facts as well as law applicable

Any order lacking such criteria was not only illegal and without lawful authority but also of no legal effect.

Order which did not contain rebuttal on ground advanced and judgments relied upon by appellant and also were not containing substantial reasons and did not show that these were passed on objective consideration would be treated as illegal, void and arbitrary and result of misuse of authority vested in public functionary

No room was available for such illegal, void, arbitrary and perverse order

Perverse finding of fact was violative of principles of appreciation of evidence and as such not sustainable in law

Every judicial or quasi-judicial finding should be based on reasons containing justification for finding in order

Order being in violation of basic principles of good governance and mandatory requirements of S. 24A of General Clauses Act, 1897, , appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Judicial order must be a speaking order maintaining by itself that court has made an endeavour to sift grains from chaff for resolution of issues involved for their proper adjudication

Ultimate result may be reached at by diligent effort but if final order does not bear imprint of that effort and in contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought and action, such justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done is inescapable.

Speaking order-Public functionaries are bound to decide cases of their subordinates after application of mind with cogent reasons within reasonable time.

Requirement of furnishing reasons ensures transparency and accountability of public institutions and makes them stronger

Unreasoned orders generate corruption and weaken institutions and slowly eat into the foundations of a healthy democracy

Government cannot make policy and issue notifications which flout fundamental rights of citizens

Every policy, every action, every step taken by government must be well thought out and within the Constitutional framework

Best way to achieve good governance by Provincial Government and public institutions is to furnish reasons and pass speaking orders.

All authorities and courts are required to pass speaking orders.

Order-in-original and order-in-appeal showed that those were not speaking orders in which all issues raised by the importer had been discussed and dealt with properly

Such orders were without jurisdiction in as the competent authorities had not discussed questions of law and fact addressed by the taxpayer.

Judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the court had applied its judicial mind to the issues and the points of controversy invoked in the cause

When the reasons would not be forthcoming, the Appellate Court would be deprived of the views of the subordinate court

Order which was not a speaking order and devoid of reasons was not sustainable in law being in contravention of settled law.

Authority exercising statutory powers of appeal and revision affecting valuable rights of the parties act as quasi judicial authority

Such authority must pass a speaking order duly supported by reasoning showing due application of mind to facts and law applicable

Orders lacking such criteria were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and hence beyond jurisdiction and coram non juidce.

Under S.24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897, even public functionaries are duty bound to decide the case after application of mind.

Public functionaries are obliged to redress grievances of citizens/their subordinates with reasons.

Under S.24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897, even public functionaries are duty bound to decide the case after application of mind.

Public functionaries are obliged to redress grievances of citizens/their subordinates with reasons.

Not length of order, but its quality is important.

Judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself application of judicial mind by Court to issues and points of controversy involved in the causes

When reasons would not be forthcoming, then Appellate Court would be deprived of the views of subordinate Court

Order, which was not a speaking order and devoid of reasons, would not be sustainable in law

Practice of passing perfunctory orders in the causes involving valuable rights of parties was disapproved.