SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.versusMODERN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

               [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 621


                SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.                            A
                              V.
  MODERN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. &
                        ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003)
                                                                 B
                    OCTOBER 18, 2010 ·

    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

      Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973- r. 36(3) - Co-
operative Housing Society passing resolution proposing           C
expulsion of its members - The proposal sent for approval
to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies - Records submitted
by Society before Registrar after seven years - Thereafter
proposal rejected by the Registrar- In the first round of
litigation, High Court remanding the matter to the Registrar     0
for reconsideration - In the second round of litigation, High
 Court in a writ petition holding that the proposal would be
deemed to be approved as the same was not decided within
a period of 6 months as required u/r. 36(3) - On appeal, held:
 The resolution passed by the Society cannot be given effect     E
to, unless approval is accorded by the Registrar as
mandatorily required under the Act and the Rules - High
 Court has wrongly gone into the question of delay on the part
of the Registrar in deciding the approval of the resolution of
the Society, leaving aside the core issue - On facts, no         F
interference was warranted by High Court in its equity
jurisdiction for issuing the writ of Certiorari - Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 1972.

      Interpretation of Statutes - Legal fiction - Interpretation
of - Held: Interpretation of the legal fiction must be limited to G
the purpose indicated_ by the context and it cannot be given
a larger effect - what can be deemed to exist under a legal
fiction are only facts and no legal consequences not flowing
from the law as it stands - In absence of a statutory provision,
                               621                                H
    622    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   the provision cannot be construed as to provide for a fiction
    - Creation of fiction by judicial interpretation would amount
    to legislation.

          Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ of Certiorari
8   - Scope of - Held: Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 can be
     issued only when there is failure of justice and there is error
     apparent on the face of the record or there is error in ·
    jurisdiction or authority or there is breach of principle of
     natural justice - While issuing such writ, order under
C   challenge not to undergo scrutiny of as an appellate court.

       Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of
  - Held: While deciding an issue, the court is bound to give
  reason.s for its conclusion - Recording of reasons is principle
  of natural justice - It ensures transparency and fairness in
D decision making - It is one of the fundamentals of such
  administration of justice-delivery system - Principles of
  natural justice - Administration of Justice.

         Precedent - Co-ordinate Bench of High Court, after
E   considering the judgment passed by another co-ordinate
    Bench of the High Court, taking contrary view - Propriety of
    - Held: A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon
    discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another co-
    ordinate Bench of the same court - The rule of precedent is
    binding on the court - In judicial administration, precedents
F
    which enunciate rules of law form foundation of administration
    of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Administration of Justice.

        Maxim - 'quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibeus et omne
    per quad devenitur ad illud' - Applicability of
G
          Words and Phrases:

          'Approval' - Meaning of

       Expression 'An error apparent on the face of the record'
H   - Meaning of
  SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP               623
           HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
    The appellants were the members of the respondent- A
Society (A co-operative Group Housing Society). The
Society proposed ex·pulsion of some of its members,
including the appellants. The proposal was sent to the
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for approval. The
Society submitted its records before the Registrar after B
about 7 years. Thereafter, the Registrar passed its order, .
rejecting the proposal. The Society filed revision before
the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed. The
Society, then filed a writ petition. The High Court
remanded the case to the Registrar for reconsideration. c
The Registrar, after reconsidering the matter, again
rejected the proposal. Revision against the order was
also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. The
Society filed another writ petition. The High Court allowed
the petition, setting aside the orders passed by the D
Registrar and the Financial Commissioner. The High
Court held interalia that since the resolution sent by the
Society was not decided within 6 month as required u/r.
36(3) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, it
would be deemed to have been approved, though there
is no such deeming provision under the Rules. Therefore, E
the instant appeal was filed.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1. It is evident from Rule 36(3) of Delhi Co-   F
operative Societies Rules, 1973 that the legislature
desired that every resolution regarding expulsion of its
members, sent to the Registrar by the Society, be
considered and decided. within a period of 6 months and
that the resolution shall be effective from the date of     G
approval. If approval is required, the order which is
required to be approved by the statutory authority cannot
become effective unless the approval is accorded.
Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting,

                                                            H
    624   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by
  another. The very act of approval means, the act of
  passing judgment, the use of discretion, and determining
  as an adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context
  of the statute. Thus, the resolution passed by the Society
B cannot be given effect to, unless approval is accorded by
  the Registrar as mandatorily required by the Delhi Co-
  operative Societies Act, 1972 and the Rules. [Paras 9, 10
  and 13] [633-H; 634-A-C; 635-A-B]

       Tri/ochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1971
C SC 733; Union of India and Ors. v. Mis. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram
  AIR 1971 SC 2295; State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harinarayan
  Jaiswa/ and Ors. AIR ~972 SC 1816; State of UP. and Ors.
  v. Vijay Bahadur Singh Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1234; Laxmikant
  and Ors. v. Satyawan and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2052; Vijayadevi
D Navalkishore Bhartia and Anr. v. Land Acquisition Officer and
  Anr. (2003) 5 sec 83 - relied on.

        1.2. The Legislature in its wisdom has not enacted
  any deeming provision providing that in case the
E resolution is not considered and finally not decided by
  the Registrar within a period of six months, the resolution
  shall become effective and operative. It is the exclusive
  prerogative of the Legislature to create a legal fiction
  meaning thereby to enact a deeming provision for the
F purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does
  not really exist. Even if a legal fiction is created by the
  Legislature, the court has to ascertain for what purpose
  the fiction is created, and it must be limited to the purpose
  indicated by the context and cannot be given a larger
G effect. More so, what can be deemed to exist under a legal
  fiction are merely facts and no legal consequences which
  do not flow from the law as it stands. It is a settled legal
  proposition that in absence of any statutory provision,
  the provision cannot be construed as to provide for a
  fiction in such an eventuality. More so, creating a fiction
H
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                 625
            HOUSING SOCIET,Y LTD.
by judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, a field   A
exclusively within the domain of the legislature.
Extension of the period from 6 months to 1 year, amounts
to legislation. [Paras 14 and 17) [635-B-E; 636-C]

    Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-processing
                                                                8
ServiceSociety Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 82; Union of India
and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AIR 1992 SC 96 - relied
on.

    B.B. Chibber v. Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing
Society Ltd.and Ors. 90 (2001) DLT 652 - approved.              C

     1.3 The High Court had found fault with the orders
of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner
basically on the grounds of delay and laches without
realising that the writ petition was not against the orders D
passed by the Registrar after inordinate delay of 7 years.
That had been the subject matter of the earlier writ
petition filed by the Society and the High Court was
dealing with subsequent orders which had been passed
by those authorities after remand. Therefore, there was E
no occasion for the High Court to go into those issues
leaving the core issue undecided. In fact, the High Court
has reviewed its earlier order as it dealt with the issues
involved in the earlier writ petition. The High Court failed
to appreciate that it was not dealing with a review petition
as it had reviewed its earlier judgment indirectly. [Para 22] F
[637-C-F)

     1.4 It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot
be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely,
meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be G
done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and
circuitous contrivance on the principle of "quando a/iquid
prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad
illud." An authority cannot be permitted to evade\a law by
"shift or contrivance". [Para 23] [637-F-H]                  H
    626   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 381;
    M. C. Mehtav. Kamal Nath and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1997 -
    referred to.

         1.5 The High Court has dealt with the case without
B
    meeting any of the reasons given by the Registrar and
    unnecessarily laboured in digging the old fossils that the
    Registrar failed to decide the case for long 8 years and
    in such a fact-situation, he would become functus-officio,
    without appreciating that if the Society was so aggrieved
C   by inaction of the Registrar, it could have approached the
    High Court to issue a direction to the Registrar to decide
    the case within a stipulated period. The statutory
    authorities must be allowed to exercise their powers
    reasonably and in good faith. In the instant case, the
    Resolution dated 27.4.1987 was forwarded by the Society
D   to the Registrar for approval after an inordinate delay on
    20.2.1988. The High Court itself has taken note that
    "several opportunities were given to the Society which
    finally submitted the records on 19.9.1995." Thus, delay
    was totally attributable to the Society itself. [Paras 26)
E   [639-B-F]

       1.6 The High Court has not recorded any finding of
  fact as to when the demands had been made from the
  members and as to whether there was any progress in
F the construction work of the Society. Not only
  administrative 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
G record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark
  of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial
  forum is that the forum discloses its reasons by itself.
  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
H
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                  627
            HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
been proper and due application of mind to the issue A
before the court, and also as an essential requisite of the
principles of natural justice. "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 B
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 become.s lifeless.
Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The c
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 principle of natural justice and every judicial
order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. D
It ensures transparency and fairne$S in decision making.
The person who is adversely affected must know why his
application has been rejected. [Paras 27 and 28] [639-G-
H; 640-A-F]

     State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794; E
State ofRajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573;
Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008)
3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer,
Rourke/a I Circle and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of
Uttarancha/ and Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 F
SC 2026; U. P. S. R. T. C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009
SC 2328; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2009) 3
SCC 258; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram and Anr.
(2009) 4 SCC 422; The Secretary and Curator, Victoria
MemorialHall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors. G
AIR 2010 SC 1285 - relied on.

    1.7 The High Court ought to have considered that it
was a petition for a writ of certiorari and it was not dealing
with an appeal. The writ of certiorari under Article 226 of
                                                                 ti
    628   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   the Constitution can be issued only when there is a failure
    of justice and it cannot be issued merely because it may
    be legally permissible to do so. There must be an error
    apparent on the face of record as the High Court acts
    merely in a supervisory capacity. An error apparent on
B   the face of the record means an error which strikes one
    on mere looking and does not need long drawn out
    process of reasoning on points where there may
    conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not
    require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness.
c   Such errors may include the giving of reasons that are
    bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It
    may also include the application of a wrong legal test to
    the facts found, taking irrelevant considerations into
    account and failing to take relevant considerations into
0   account, and wrongful admission or exclusion of
    evidence, as well as arriving at a conclusion without any
    supporting evidence. Such a writ can be issued when
    there is an error in jurisdiction or the authority whose
    order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or
    in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to act. While
E   issuing the Writ of Certiorari, the order under challenge
    should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. It is
    obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show that a
    jurisdictional error has been committed by the Statutory
    Authorities. There must be the breach of principles of
F   natural justice for resorting to such a course. Thus the
    facts of the instant case did not warrant any interference
    by the High Court in its equity jurisdiction for raising the
    writ of certiorari. [Para 29) [641-B-H; 642-A]

G     Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran AIR 1986 SC 302;
  MunicipalCouncil, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar (2006) 5 SCC
  173; Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 417;
  Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra
  Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14 SCC 171 - relied
H on.




                                                                   I
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                  629
            HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
     1.8. As the Society has been taken over by the             A
Administrator and a large number of flats remained un-
allotted, In order to meet the ends of justice it is required
that the appellants be adjusted against the said un-
allotted flats. However, the Society shall put a demand, if
any, and the appe~lants are directed to make the payment        B
with interest in a,Ccordance with law. [Para 31] [642-C-D]

     2. A co-ordtnate bench cannot comment upon the
discretion exer<tised or judgment rendered by another
co-ordinate bench of the same court. The rule of C
precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire
to secure unifor;mity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial
administration, precedents which enunciate rules of law
form the foundation of the administration of justice.
Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision
of a co-ordinate bench must be followed. In the instant D
case, it was neither desirable nor permissible by the Co-
ordinate Bench of the High Court to disapprove the
earlier judgment and take a view contrary to it. The latter
bench has taken a divergent view from an earlier co-
ordinate bench, particularly, taking note of the earlier E
decision holding otherwise, without explaining why it
could not follow the said precedent even while
extensively quoting the same. Judicial propriety and
discipline are not served by such conduct on the part of
the Division Bench. Thus, it was not permissible for the F
High Court to take the course which it has adopted and
such a course cannot be approved. [Paras 18, 20 and 21]
[636-D-E; 637-A-C]

     Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal      G
Patel andOrs. AIR 1968 SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial
Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 97;
State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association and Ors. (1998) 5
SCC 637; Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
v. Harish Kumar Purohit and Ors. (2003) 5 sec 480 - relied
on.                                                             H
    630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A                    Case Law Reference:
       (2003) 5 sec 83      Relied on.       Para 10
       AIR 1971 SC 733      Relied on.       Para 10
       AIR 1971 SC 2295     Relied on.        Para 10
B
       AIR 1972 SC 1816     Relied on.       Para 10
       AIR 1982 SC 1234     Relied on.        Para 10
       AIR 1996 SC 2052     Relied on.       Para 10
c
       (1999) 6 sec 82      Relied on.       Para 14
       AIR 1992 SC 96       Relied on.       Para 15
       90 (2001) DLT 652    Approved.        Para 16
D      AIR 1968 SC 372      Relied on.       Para 18
       (1992) 4 sec 97      Relied on.       Par;a 18
       (1998) 5 sec 637     Relied on.        Para 18

E      (2003) 5 sec 480     Relied on.        Para 19
       AIR 1979 SC 381      Referred to.     Para 23
       AIR 2000 SC 1997     Referred to.      Para 23
       AIR 2004 SC 1794     Relied on.       ·Para 28
F
       (2004) 5 sec 573     Relied on.        Para 28
       (2008) 3 sec 112     Relied on.       Para 28
       (2008) 9 sec 407     Relied on.        Para 28
G
       AIR 2008 SC 2026     Relied on.        Para 28
       AIR 2009 SC 2328     Relied on.        Para 28
       (2009) 3 sec 258     Relied on.        Para 28
H
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                      631
            HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
    (2009) 4 sec 422            Relied on.             Para 28       A

    AIR 2010 SC 1285            Relied on.             Para 28

    AIR 1986 SC 302             Relied on.             Para 29

    (2006) s sec 113            Relied on.             Para 29       B
    (2oos) 2 sec 417            Relied on.             Para 29

     (2008) 14 sec 111          Relied on.            Para 29

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9439 of 2003.                                                        C

    From the Judgment & Order dated 4.9.2002 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2 of 1998.

     D.N. Goburdhan, Prabal Bagchi for the Appellant.
                                                                     D
     M.C. Dhingra, Pramod Dayal for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed              E
against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the
Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2/98 by which the High
Court has set aside the judgment and order of the Financial
Commissioner dated 3.11.1997 passed in Case No.234/97-
CA, and also the judgment and order of the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies dated 26.8.1997.                   ·          F

      2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
 that the appellants had been the members of the Modern Co-
 op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'Society')
 and claimed to have paid all their subscriptions of membership G
 and other dues on the demands made by the Society. The
.Society had proposed the expulsion of 27 members including
 the appellants, by its Resolution dated 27.4.1987 and the said
 proposal was sent to the Registrar of the Co-operative
 Societies (hereinafter called the Registrar) as required under H
    632    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972
    (hereinafter called as 'Act 1972'), for approval on 20.2.1988
    and meanwhile it enrolled new members, whose approval was
    also sought. In spite of all efforts made by the Registrar, the
    Society did not submit the record before him prior to 19.9.1995.
B   The Registrar vide order dated 2.2.1996 issued notice to the
    Society for consideration of the said resolution and vide order
    dated 4.6.1996 rejected the approval.

          3. Being aggrieved, the Society approached the Financial
C   Commissioner by filing a revision under Section 80 of the Act
    1972 which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated
    30. 7 .1996. Being aggrieved, the Society filed Writ Petition
    No.3325/1996 before the Delhi High Court and after hearing
    the same, the matter was remanded to the Registrar for
    reconsideration. In pursuance of the order of the Delhi High
D   Court, the Registrar considered the matter afresh and passed
    an order dated 26.8.1997 rejecting the approval of the
    expulsion of the appellants and other members. Being
    aggrieved, the Society preferred a revision before the Financial
    Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated
E   3.11.1997.

         4. The Society challenged the aforesaid orders of the
    Financial Commissioner as well as of the Registrar by filing Writ
    Petition before the Delhi High Court which has been allowed.
F   Hence! this appeal.

        5. Shri D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for the
  appellants has submitted that the High Court has mis-directed
  itself and did not decide the core issue involved in the case.
  The High Court has held that in case the resolution sent by the
G Society is not considered and decided finally by the Registrar
  within a period of 6 months as required under Rule 36(3) of the
  Rules 1973, it will be deemed to have been approved, though,
  there is no such deeming provision under the Act 1972. The

H
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                    633
  HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
High Court further committed an error extending the period of A
6 months to 1 year re-legislating the statutory provision. More
so, there is no reference to the findings recorded by the
Financial Commissioner and the Registrar in their impugned
orders and no reasons have been recorded to set aside the
same. Thus, appeal deserves to be allowed.                      B

     6. On the contrary, Shri M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel
appearing for the Society, has vehemently opposed the appeal
contending that the appellants had been defaulters and in spite
of several demands made by the Society they did not pay the
amount. Their expulsion was strictly in consonance with the       C
Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called
the Rules). No fault can be found with the judgment and order
of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to the
dismissed.
                                                                  D
     7. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    8. Rule 36(3) of the Rules reads as under:

    "36. Procedure for expulsion of members-                      E

    (1) xx xx xx xx

    (2) xx xx xx xx

    (3) When a resolution passed in accordance with sub-rule F
    (1) or (2) is sent to the Registrar or otherwise brought to
    his notice, the Registrar may consider the resolution and
    after making such enquiry as to whether full and final
    opportunity has been given under sub-rule (1) or (2) give
    his approval and communicate the same to the society and G
    the member concerned within a period of 6 months. The
    resolution shall be effective from the date of approval."
    (Emphasis added).

    9. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the        H
    634     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   legislature desired that every such resolution sent to the
    Registrar by the Society be considered and decided within a
    period of 6 months and that the resolution shall be effective from
    the date of approval. If approval is required, the order which is
    required to be approved by the statutory authority cannot
B   become effective unless the approval is accorded.

         10. Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting,
    sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another.
    The very act of approval means, the act of passing judgment,
    the use of discretion, and determining as an adjudication
C   therefrom unless limited by the context of the Statute. (Vide:
    Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Anr. v. Land Acquisition
    Officer & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 83).

         11. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal
D   proposition that if a statute provides for the approval of the
    higher Authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is
    approved and the same remains inconsequential and
    unenforceable. (Vide: Trilochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa
    & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 733; Union of India & Ors. v. Mis
E   Bhimsen Walaiti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 2295; State of Orissa &
    Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors., AIR 1972 SC 1816; State
    of UP. & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors., AIR 1982 SC
    1234; and Laxmikant & Ors. v. Satyawan & Ors., AIR 1996 SC
    2052).
F       12. While dealing with the approval of an award under the
    Land Acquisition Act, this Court in Vijayadevi Navalkishore
    Bhartia (supra) held:

                 "In the context of an administrative act, the word
G         'approval' does not mean anything more than either
          confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting.
          This is only an administrative power which limits the
          jurisdiction of the authority to apply its mind to see whether
          the proposed award is acceptable to the Government or
H         not."
    SAi\T LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                      635
   HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     13. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid settled legal     A
proposition that the resolution passed by the Society cannot be
given effect to unless approval is accorded by the Registrar as
mandatorily required by the Act 1972 and the Rules.

        14. The Legislature in its wisdom has not enacted any
                                                                      8
  deeming provision providing that in case the resolution is not
  consiJered and finally not decided by the Registrar witi1in a
  period of six months, the resolution shall become effective and
  operative. It is the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature to
  create a legal fiction meaning thereby to enact a deeming
  provision for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact C
  which does not re 1lly exist. Even if a legal fiction is created by
  the Legislature, the court has to ascertain for what purpose the
  fiction is created, and it must be limited to the purpose
  indicated by the context and cannot be given a larger effect.
  More so, what can be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are D
  merely facts and no legal consequences which do not flow from
  the law as it stands. It is a settled legal proposition that in
  absence of any statutory provision, the provision cannot be
  construed as to provide for a fiction in such an eventuality. More
  so, creating a fiction by judicial interpretation may amount to E
  legislation, a field exclusively within the domain of the
  legislature. (Vide: Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-
  cum-processing Service Society Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC
. 82).
                                                                       F
    15. In Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal,
AIR 1992 SC 96, this Court observed as under:

     "It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope
     of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the
     language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The           G
     Court cannot rewrite,recast or reframe the legislation for
     the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The
     power to legislate has not been conferred on the Court."

This Court explained the distinction between the 'deeming              H
    636     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   provisions' and 'presumption' and held that the distinction is well
    discernible.

         16. Be that as it may, the High Court has referred to its
    Division Bench judgment in B.B. Chibber v. Anand Lok Co-
s   operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 90 (2001) DLT
    652, wherein the same provision has been considered and it
    had categorically been held that deeming approval was not
    legally permissible.

          17. In view of the above, it was neither desirable nor
C   permissible by the Co-ordinate Bench to disapprove the earlier
    judgment and take view contrary to it. More so, extension of the
    period from 6 months to 1 year amounts to legislation.

         18. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the
0   discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another
    coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is
    binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity
    and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents
    which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the
E   administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has
    always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench
    must be followed. (Vide: Tribhovandas Purshottamdas
    Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 372; Sub-
    committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors.,
    (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar
F   Association & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637).

          19. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v.
    Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court
    held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate
G   bench a"nd take the same view as has been taken earlier. The
    earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any
    latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If
    the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken
    by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the
H   matter to a larger bench.
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                      637
  HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     20. In the instant case, the position before us is worse as     A
the latter bench has taken a divergent view from ~n earlier
coordinate bench, particularly taking note of the earlier decision
holding otherwise, without explaining why it could not follow the
said precedent even while extensively quoting the same.
Judicial propriety and discipline are not served by such conduct     B
on the part of the division bench.

     21. Thus, in view of the above, it was not permissible for ·
the High Court to take the course which it has adopted and such
a course cannot be approved.
                                                                     c
      22. The High Court had found fault with the orders of the
Registrar and the Financial Commissioner basically on the
grounds of delay and laches without realising that the writ
petition was not against the orders passed Ely the Registrar
after inordinate delay of 7 years. That had been the subject         D
matter of the earlier writ petition No. 3325/1996 filed by the
Society and the High Court was dealing with subsequent
orders which had been passed by those authorities after
remand. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court
to go into those issues and leaving the core issue undecided.        E
In fact the High Court has made an attempt to review its earlier
order as it dealt with the issues involved in the earlier writ
petition No.3325/1996. The High Court failed to appreciate that
it was not dealing with a review petition as it had .reviewed its
earlier judgment indirectly.                                         F

     23. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot l:>e
done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning
thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally
be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the
principle of "quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per      G
quod devenitur ad illud." An authority cannot be permitted to
evade a law by "shift or contrivance". (See: Jagir Singh v.
Ranbir Singh & Anr., Al R 1979 SC 381 ; and M. C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1997).
                                                                     H
    638    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A       24. The Registrar after remand considered the matter and
  vide order dated 26.8.1997 disposed of the same dealing with
  the question of the expulsion of the appellants and others. The
  case was decided after giving full opportunity of hearing to all
  the parties concerned. The contention of the Society has been
B that in spite of sufficient opportunities the proposed expelle(j
  members did not pay the dues, and therefore, the Society was
  justified in passing the resolution for their expulsion. The
  appellants had contended that no valid demand had ever been
  made by the Society and affairs of the Society were totally
c mismanaged by one Shri C.D. Garg, who had no competence
  to deal with the working of the Society. After appreciating the
  evidence on record the Registrar recorded the following
  findings:

           (i)     Affairs of the Society were mis-managed by Shri
D                  C.D. Garg who was father of the Secretary of the
                   Society andhad no authority to function on behalf of
                   the Society;

           (ii)    There was no development in the Society in spite
E                  of large turnover of members;

           (iii)   New members had been enrolled before grant of
                   any approval of expulsion by the Registrar;

           (iv)    No construction had been started and there was no
F                  progress in the work and thus no demand could
                   have been made from the members of the Society;

           (v)     Affairs of the Society required to be enquired into;
                   and
G          (vi)    According approval of expulsion to the members
                   would amount to encouraging the mal-practices in
                   the Society.

          25. While considering the revision filed by the Society
H
   SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                    639
  HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
under Section 80 of the Act 1972, the Financial Commissioner      A
in his judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 concurred with the
reasoning given by the Registrar and the revisional authority,
and had given cogent reasons for such agreement.

     26. The High Court has dealt with the case without meeting
                                                                   8
any of the reasons given by the Registrar and unnecessarily
laboured in digging the old fossils that the Registrar failed to
decide the case for long 8 years and in such a fact-situation
he would become functus-officio, without appreciating that if the
Society was so aggrieved by inaction of the Registrar, it could C
have approached the High Court to issue a direction to the
Registrar to decide the case within a stipulated period. It is not
to be forgotten that there could be many reasons and
circumstances to account for the resolution not having been
considered within the stipulated time. In such cases delay may
be for reasons on the part of the applicant himself. The statutory D
authorities must be allowed to exercise their powers reasonably
and in good faith.

     In the instant case, the Resolution dated 27.4.1987 was
forwarded by the Society to the Registrar for approval after an   E
inordinate delay on 20.2.1988. The High Court in paragraph 13
of the impugned judgment itself has taken note that "several
opportunities were given to the Society which finally submitted
the records on 19.9.1995." Thus, delay was totally attributable
to the Society itself.                                            F

     27. So far as the issue of the expulsion of the members of
the Society is concerned, the High Court has not recorded any
finding of fact as to when the demands had been made from
the members and as to whether there was any progress in the
construction work of the Society. We have been taken through G
the entire judgment of the High Court. We cannot find any single
iota which may be termed as a reason for the judgment and
we are at a complete loss and could not find out as what the
High Court has decided.
                                                                  H
    640    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         28. It is a settled legal proposition that not only
     administrative 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
B   disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise
     of judicial power by a judicial forum is that the forum to
    discloses its reasons by itself 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
c   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 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
0
    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
E   order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is
    subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording
    of reasons is 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
F   is adversely affected must know why his application has been
    rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004
    SC 1794; State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5
    SCC 573; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
    Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales
G   Tax Officer, Rourke/a I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State
    of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008
    SC 2026; U.P.S.R. T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC
    2328; Ram Pha/ v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
    258; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009)
H   4 SCC 422; and The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
  SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP                     641
 HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010         A
SC 1285).

     29. The High court ought to have considered that it was a
writ of certiorari and it was not dealing with an appeal. The writ
of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued 8
only when there is a failure of justice and it cannot be issued
merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. There
must be an error apparent on the face of record as the High
Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity. An error apparent
on the face of the record means an error which strikes one on C
mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter
to show its incorrectness. Such errors may include the giving
of reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or
inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal D
test to the facts found, taking irrelevant considerations into
account and failing to take relevant considerations into account,
and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, as well as
arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such
a writ can be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or E
authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to act.
While issuing the Writ of Certiorari, the order under challenge
should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. It is obligatory
on the part of the petitioner to show that a jurisdictional error F
has been committed by the Statutory Authorities. There must
be the breach of principles of natural justice for resorting to such
a course. (Vide: Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, AIR 1986
SC 302; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar,
(2006) 5 SCC 173; Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, G
(2008) 2 SCC 417; and Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax,
Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, (2008)
 14 sec 171) In view of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that facts of the case did not warrant any interference
                                                                  H
    642      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (AOOL.) S.C.R.


A   by the High Court in its equity jurisdiction for raising the writ of
    certiorari.

         30. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
    the manner in which the impugned judgment has been passed,
    appeal deserves to be allowed.
8
          31. Be that as it may, we have been informed by learned
    counsel for the parties that the Society has been taken over by
    the Administrator and a large number of flats remained un-
    allotted. The appellants have filed the information sought by
C   them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23.4.2008
    which makes it clear that 15 flats bearing Nos. 14, 23, 217, 324,
    325, 327, 418, 421, 426, 513, 516, 619, 623 and 726 category-
    , B' and 737 category-'A' remained un-allotted. In order to meet
    the ends of justice it is required that appellants be adjusted
D   against the said un-allotted flats. However, the Society shall put
    a demand, if any, and the appellants are directed to make the
    payment with interest in accordance with law.

         32. In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Judgment and
E   order of the High Court dated 4.9.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No.
    2/98 is hereby set aside and the judgment and order of the
    statutory authorities dated 26.8.1997 and 3.11.1997 are
    restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                           Appeal allowed.