1 W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 ----- 1. Taklima Bibi, aged about 38 years, wife of Syed Hossain. 2. Ruhida Bibi, aged about 40 years, wife of RabbekulShekh. 3. Mamtaj Bibi, aged about 29 years, wife of FajalShekh. All are resident of Village-Chatpura, P.O.-Kanijhada, P.S.- Maheshpur, District-Pakur. .......... Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.-Pakur, District- Pakur. 5. The District Supply Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.-Pakur, District- Pakur. 6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.-Pakur, District-Pakur. 7. The Block Supply Officer, Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S.-Maheshpur, District-Pakur. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V ----- Order No.05 Date: 27.02.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (the respondent no.4) in P.D.S. Dealer Licence Cancellation Appeal Case No.01 of 2024-25, whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order as contained in memo no.1318 dated 4th October, 2023 passed by the District Supply Officer, Pakur (the respondent no.5) cancelling the PDS Licence No.07 of 2012 issued with 2 W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 respect to “Islam Swayam Sahayta Samuh” has been rejected without assigning any reason. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved with the order as contained in memo no.1318 dated 4th October, 2023 passed by the respondent no.5 cancelling the PDS Licence No.07 of 2012 issued with respect to “Islam Swayam Sahayta Samuh”, the petitioners preferred P.D.S. Dealer Licence Cancellation Appeal Case No.01 of 2024-25 before the respondent no.4. The said appeal has, however, been rejected by the respondent no.4 vide impugned order dated 13th September, 2024 without assigning any reason. On that score alone, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.4, it appears that the said respondent has rejected the appeal merely writing a sentence i.e., “On admission, appeal is rejected”. 4. The manner in which the respondent no.4 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners clearly suggests non- application of mind on its part. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:- “40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496] this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below: (SCC pp. 510-12) “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. 3 W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 (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 lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (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. (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, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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’.” 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Asha Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Others reported in in (2011) 10 SCC 86 has held as under:- 4 W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 “14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and inconsonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then defer from person to person and from situation to situation, Even if the determinative factors of the situations in question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.” 7. It is trite law that an order of an administrative authority adversely affecting the right and interest of any party is required to be supported by sound decision making process which includes the consideration of the explanation submitted by the affected party in reply to the show cause. Such decision would also facilitate the higher authorities to exercise their jurisdiction. Justice should not only be done, but must be seen to be done. It is not required that the reason should always be elaborated rather it should be clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy and the extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. When an administrative authority is vested with the power to pass any order which is of determinative nature then it is the duty of such authority to exercise its discretionary power in line with principles of fairness and good governance and such action should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and 5 W.P.(C) No.367 of 2025 nepotism. However, in the present case, the respondent no.4 has rejected the petitioners’ appeal without assigning any reason whatsoever. Hence, the same cannot be sustained in law. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.4 in P.D.S. Dealer Licence Cancellation Appeal Case No.01 of 2024-25 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.4 to pass a fresh reasoned order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned parties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observation and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/