2025:HHC:15724 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 8187/2025 Decided on: 22.05.2025 M/s Nuvision Commercial & Escort Services …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. . For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan,A.G. with Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G. along with Dr. Amitabh Jain, CMO Sirmour. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) Respondent No.3 on 30.1.2025 issued e-tender for providing security services for Civil Hospital Mandi, H.P. on outsourcing basis. The petitioner participated in the tender process, however tender process was not taken to its logical end, rather the same was cancelled due to “administrative reasons”. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:15724 2 On 22.2.2025, the same process was reinitiated by the said respondent by way of notice inviting tender (NIT). The petitioner again participated in the tender process. The technical evaluation was conducted by respondent No.4 and the petitioner-firm along with three more firms including respondent No.5 were admitted to the technical bid. 3 After technical evaluation, four firms were declared to be qualified. Respondent No.5 raised observations regarding tender process with respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 instead of going ahead with the tender process again cancelled the tender process on the ground of “administrative reasons” constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the technical evaluation sheet Annexure P-6 issued by the respondent no 4 to the extent whereby the respondent no. 5 has been held as technically qualified and also for quashing the impugned corrigendum Annexure P-8 dt. 28.04.2025 issued by the respondent no.-. 3 where by the respondent no.- 3 has cancelled the tender process initiated in pursuance to the Notice inviting tender dt. 22.02.2025 and has ordered re- tendering of the same work. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the Respondents more specifically 3 2025:HHC:15724 respondent No. 3 to proceed with the tender process initiated in pursuance to NIT dated 22.02.2025 and complete the same in accordance with law. 4 It appears that the respondents despite judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court have not learnt their lesson well and are still cancelling the tenders only due to “administrative reasons”. 5 It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that the authority should pass reasoned order. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference. 6 Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 7 The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform the appellate function or exercise the power of judicial 4 2025:HHC:15724 review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. 8 In Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject- matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi- judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. 9 Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915. 10 The necessity of assigning reason has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates 5 2025:HHC:15724 Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SSC 496, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the position of law was summarized as under:- (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. 6 2025:HHC:15724 (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-37). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA C 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 7 2025:HHC:15724 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires. "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 11 In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- 38. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 243. para 36). "36......Every State action may be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that 'be you ever so high, the laws are above you'. This is what men in power must remember, always." 40. In LIC Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 this Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly is part of fair procedure erwisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by 8 2025:HHC:15724 the public interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 and Mahesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Financial Corpn.(1993) 2 SCC 279. 41. In State of W.B. Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw 1991 Supp (1) SCC 414, this Court observed that: (SCC p. 421, para 7) 7....Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." 42. In S.N, Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990) 4 SCC 594, it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as to it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 43. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605. this Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 637, para 47). "47......Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21. 9 2025:HHC:15724 44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.(2010) 13 SCC 336, placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 345-46, para 27). "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders 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. 3....The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind'. 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 the 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." 45. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537, this Court held that on charge of misconduct the authority holding the inquiry must record reasons for reaching its conclusion and record clear findings. The Court further held: (SCC p. 558, para 30). 10 2025:HHC:15724 30.....In fairness and justice, the member is entitled to know why he has been found guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under Section 22-A of the Act. To exercise his right of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. We have already pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first determinative finding on the guilty of the member. It is a finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of a finding. Moreover, the reasons contained in the report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion may or may not constitute the basis of the finding rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore, state the reasons for its finding." 46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance." 12 Earlier to the aforesaid decisions, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India. (1990) 4 SCC 594, after an exhaustive review of its earlier pronouncements as also the views expressed in 11 2025:HHC:15724 other jurisdictions and by expert committees, summarized and explained the law as under:- "The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quest judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity at the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. 12 2025:HHC:15724 Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the re- cording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quast judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority. If it affirms such an 13 2025:HHC:15724 order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. Having considered the rationale for the requirement to record the reasons for the decision of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions we may now examine the legal basis for imposing this obligation. While considering this aspect the Donoughmore Committee observed that it may well be argued that there is a third principle of natural justice, namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-Judicial. The committee expressed the opinion that "there are some cases where the refusal to give grounds for a decision may be plainly unfair; and this may be so, even when the decision is final and no further proceedings are open to the disappointed party by way of appeal or otherwise" and that "where further proceedings are open to a disappointed party, it is contrary to natural justice that the silence of the Minister or the Ministerial Tribunal should deprive them of the opportunity." (P 80) Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also ex- pressed the view that "natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice." (See Wade, Administrative Law. 6th Edn. P. 548)." 13 In Pankaj Garg vs. Meenu Garg & Anr. (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 246, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 14 2025:HHC:15724 reiterated the settled position of law holding that an order, which does not contain any reason, is no order in the eyes of law. 14 Consequently, the instant petition, in absence of any reasons in the order of cancellation of tender, is allowed and the impugned corrigendum, Annexure P-8, dated 28.4.2025 issued by respondent No.3, whereby he cancelled the tender process and ordered retender is quashed and set aside. 15 However, it is made clear that in case the tender process as initiated cannot be taken to its logical end for any legal and valid reasons, then the respondent No.3 shall pass a detailed reasoned order for the same and in case tender can proceed, then the same shall be taken to its logical end. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 22.5.2025 Judge (pankaj)