$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010561202024 + W.P.(CRL) 2662/2024 & CRL.M.A. 26210/2024 BIJENDER @ BIJENDRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jasdev Singh, Adv. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal) for State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mrs. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advs. SI Urvashi PS Sonia Vihar CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. The present petition assails the order dated 31.01.2024 (“Impugned Order”) whereby sanction to prosecute respondent no. 3 and 4 has been declined. 2. The Impugned Order reads as under: “With reference to your application dated 29.11.2022 on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform that the competent authority has gone through the material placed on record and is of the considered view that prima facie, there is no cogent material to justify the grant of prosecution sanction u/s 140 DP Act r/w 197 Cr.PC against the public servants namely Ms. Malti Bana, SHO (Retired), PS Sonia Vihar, ASI Narender Kumar and other unknown police officials posted at PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi, in this case. Therefore, your request dated 29.12.2023 is not acceded to.” 3. A bare perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that no reasons whatsoever have been accorded to arrive at the decision that sanction is not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:07:44 warranted. 4. The Supreme Court, in para 44 of its judgement in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin1, made the following observations about the importance of passing a reasoned order: “44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794] , State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi [(2008) 11 SCC 205 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1093] , Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity [(2010) 3 SCC 732 : AIR 2010 SC 1285] and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904] )” 5. Further, in Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya2, the Supreme Court set aside an order for being a non- speaking and cryptic one. Para 5 of the judgement has been reproduced below: 1(2012) 8 SCC 148 2(2022) 6 SCC 540 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:07:44 “5. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record.” 6. In Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India3,while passing the order in question, the concerned authority had failed to deal with the justifications offered by the aggrieved party in its representation. Taking note of the same, the Apex Court made the following observations regarding the order: “6. …The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him…” 7. The Court, in Siemens (supra), also held that the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice, and hence, must be observed in its proper spirit, a mere pretence of compliance with the rule would not suffice. 3 (1976) 2 SCC 981. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:07:44 8. In light of the above, without delving into the controversy involved in the matter, the Impugned Order is set aside on the ground that is non- speaking. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority to re- consider the petitioner’s grievance and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. In view of above, the petition stands disposed of. Pending application stands disposed of. 10. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 2026/ab This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:07:44