| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1126
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 12292 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA |
| Parties : A. Rajasekhar Gowd Versus Union of India & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A.N.S. Venkatesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Y. Vivekananda, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 19-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
2. Catch Words:
- Interim relief
- Writ of Mandamus
- Natural justice
- Non‑speaking order
- Reason
3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his interim relief by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad. The CAT’s order dated 23‑04‑2026 denied interim relief without providing any reasons, rendering it a non‑speaking order. The Court held that every judicial order must contain reasons, citing *Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad* for the principle that reason is the soul of a judgment. Consequently, the Court quashed the part of the CAT order rejecting interim relief and directed the Tribunal to rehear the interim relief petition, affording both parties a hearing and deciding it expeditiously, preferably on the next listed date of 23‑07‑2026 or within a week thereafter. No merits of the underlying dispute were decided.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri A.N.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Against the writ petitioner the remitting order was passed. Challenging those proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A.No.424 of 2026. He also prayed for grant of interim relief.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) by order dated 23.04.2026 rejected the prayer for interim relief. The order reads as under:
“Heard Mr.ANS Venkatesh, learned counsel for the applicant. Admit
Interim Relief, as sought in the O.A., is rejected. Issue notice to the respondents.
Four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file a reply in the matter.
List the case, on 23.07.2026, before the Registrar’s Court, for completion of pleadings.
A copy of today’s order to be sent to the respondents through email, to enable them to file reply, to support speedy adjudication and disposal.”
4. Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“ to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to stay all the further departmental proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the remitting order of the 3rd Respondent passed vide F.No.ARSGA/Vig/PCIT/ TPT/2025-2026 dated 20.11.2025 under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 till the Central Administrative Tribunal considers and passes appropriate orders in OA No 424/2026 while declaring the rejection order dated 23/04/2026 as arbitrary illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and pass.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is a non-speaking order and by just one line, prayer for interim relief has been rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has fixed a short date and the matter is listed before the Tribunal on 23.07.2026 for completion of pleadings.
7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the impugned order.
8. The impugned order as extracted above makes it evident that the order is a non speaking order to reject the interim relief. No reason has been assigned for rejection of the interim relief. The case of the parties has not even been considered.
9. It is well settled in law that a judicial order must contain the reasons. The reasons are the back bone of every order. In Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad ((2024) 4 SCC 696), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The supreme requirement of a good judgment is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reason. The weight of a judgment, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reason. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment.”
10. Para Nos.57 & 58 in Asma Lateef (supra) reads as under:
57. We deem it fit to advert to the fine words of wisdom imparted to us by Hon'ble P.B. Mukharji, C.J., in The New Jurisprudence : The Grammar of Modern Law where the learned author says:
“The supreme requirement of a good judgment is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reason. The weight of a judgment, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reason. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment.”
58. It is one of the cardinal principles of the justice delivery system that any verdict of a competent judicial forum in the form of a judgment/order, that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must inform the parties what is the outcome and why one party has succeeded and not the other — the “why” constituting the reasons and “what” the conclusion. Apart from anything else, insistence of the requirement for the reason(s) to support the conclusion guarantees application of mind by the adjudicator to the materials before it as well as provides an avenue to the unsuccessful party to test the reasons before a higher court.”
11. The impugned order is unsustainable on such ground.
12. Only, on the aforesaid ground, we allow the writ petition and quash that part of the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 by which the interim relief has been rejected.
13. The Tribunal shall reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides and expeditiously, if possible on the next date i.e., 23.07.2026 and if so not possible for some justifiable reasons, the interim prayer shall be considered and decided within next one week from the date fixed positively.
14. The Writ Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the matter/interim prayer, either way.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
|
| |
