Anil Kumar, J.@mdashHeard Sri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the record.
2. Facts of the present case are that initially by way of an agreement the petitioner has been allotted a fair price show under Public distribution System. On 21.02.2006, a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner by the competent authority/O.P. No. 2 to which he submitted response. Thereafter, by means of order dated 21.03.2006, his agreement to run fair price shop has been cancelled.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal No. 488 of 2006), dismissed by an order dated 25.09.2006 (Annexure No. 6). hence for redressal of his grievance he filed present writ petition before this Court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the documents on record, it transpires that the impugned as well as appellate order is nonspeaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the said authorities while dismissing the petitioner''s case.
5. It is well settled law that an order passed by an authority should be a reasoned one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order.
6. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
7. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'', it can be 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 to the later before 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 reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance."
8. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2005(99) RD 46 held that one of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance."
9. The said requirement is also in accordance with the principles of natural justice as a person against whom the impugned decision is taken should know that under what circumstances the same has been taken and as in the present case, the impugned orders are nonspeaking orders and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the official respondents while passing the same.
10. Further, the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner has not stated the grounds and reasons on which the said authority had disagreed that the contention as raised by the petitioner in his appeal and by a nonreasoned order confirmed the findings given by the licencing authority while cancelling the petitioner''s agreement to run the fair price shop.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 25.09.2006 passed in appeal No. 488 of 2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to appellate authority to decide a fresh in accordance with law with reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
12. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed.
13. No order as to costs.
