The Kerala High Court has directed that all protests, complaints, and representations addressed to public authorities must be referred to the competent authority along with a proper report and a reasoned order, stressing that mere filing of grievances cannot be met with casual, unexplained responses or inaction. The ruling came in a writ petition where the petitioners challenged the manner in which their complaints and representations on administrative issues were disposed of or ignored by authorities, arguing that they were entitled to reasoned decisions rather than perfunctory acknowledgements or unexplained rejection.
The petitioners had submitted a set of grievances to various government departments and local authorities concerning public services and administrative decisions. They contended that despite timely filing of these complaints, the responses received were either non-responsive, cursory, or lacked reasoning and justification, thereby denying them effective redress. The petitioners argued that the denial of reasoned orders or failure to refer matters to the proper authority amounted to procedural impropriety and arbitrariness in administrative action.
In examining the case, the High Court emphasised that public authorities are duty-bound to process complaints and representations in a manner that is fair, transparent, and accountable. A bench of the Court noted that the rule of law requires administrative decisions affecting public rights and entitlements to be reasoned, so that aggrieved persons can understand why a particular course of action was taken and, if necessary, seek further legal remedies. The Court observed that unexplained dismissals, casual acknowledgements, or failure to refer grievances to the competent authority amount to a neglect of statutory and constitutional duties entrusted to public officials.
The High Court referred to established administrative law principles that require reasoned orders in cases where grievances are dealt with, highlighting that the absence of reasoning impairs the ability of the affected parties to challenge the decision effectively in appropriate fora. The bench noted that reasoned orders ensure transparency in governance and promote accountability, while blind rejection without justification leads to opacity and erodes public confidence in administrative processes.
In its order, the Court directed that where a protest, complaint, or representation is filed before a statutory or administrative authority, the authority must ensure that it is promptly referred to the competent officer or forum empowered to consider and dispose of such matters. Along with the referral, the authority must record and communicate a report outlining the relevant facts, the applicable legal or policy provisions, and the rationale that justifies either acceptance, rejection, or other disposition of the grievance. The reasoned order should address the issues raised by the complainant and provide sufficient explanation so as to afford clarity on why the administrative action was taken.
The High Court held that failure to issue a reasoned order, or merely brushing off complaints with formulaic responses, amounts to procedural impropriety. It underscored that administrative action must conform to the principles of natural justice, which include the right of an aggrieved person to receive a fair and considered decision on the merits of their complaint. The Court emphasised that absent proper reasoning, decisions are susceptible to challenge as arbitrary or capricious.
The bench also noted that administrative authorities play a vital role in ensuring effective governance and that systematic handling of complaints and representations is essential for upholding public trust. The duty to provide a reasoned order is not to burden administrative processes, but to enable affected persons to understand the basis of decisions and to facilitate accountability in public administration.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while issuing a generalized directive to all concerned authorities to follow this approach in future. The Court mandated that protests and complaints should not be dismissed summarily, and that a structured process must be adopted to ensure referral to competent authorities along with a detailed report and reasoned order. The judgment serves as a reminder that administrative fairness, transparency and accountability are integral to governance, and that reasoned decisions are central to the rule of law.
The High Court’s order reiterates that while citizens have a right to file grievances and representations, they are equally entitled to receive reasoned and substantive responses. Authorities, whether statutory or administrative, must therefore ensure that grievances are tackled with procedural diligence and explained through reasoned orders rather than being disposed of casually or without adequate rationale. This principle applies broadly across public administration wherever complaints and protests are filed, reinforcing the need for reasoned administrative action in all such cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.