Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63375 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9689 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kaisar Jahan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gunjan Sharma,Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar/District Programme Coordinator is under challenge. By the aforesaid order, recovery has been sought from the petitioners. 2. Apart from the various other arguments, one of the argument has been raised by the petitioner that against the show cause notice dated 21.01.2025, a detail reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25.01.2025 but without considering the same, the order impugned has been passed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. From perusal of the order impugned, the Court is prima facie satisfied that without considering the reply submitted, only in one line i.e., "स्पषष्टीकरण ससंततोषजनक नहहीं पपायपा गयपा", the reply submitted by the petitioner has been rejected and the order impugned has been passed without assigning any reason. This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Law in this connection is well settled that the order must be supported by the speaking and reasoned order. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others AIR 1970 SC 1302 held that recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:- "The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeal against orders which prima facie seriously preju- dice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving rea- sons is a negation of the rule of law." "Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may deter- mine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just." 7. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Wool combers of India Ltd. case AIR 1973 SC 2758 was pleased to hold that giving reasons in respect of their conclusion by judicial and quasi judicial authorities without giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:- "The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decision of judicial and quasi- judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136-A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 was pleased to hold that a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority should give reasons in support of its decision. The relevant extract of the judgement is quoted below:- 15. The expression ''speaking order' was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. 16. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi- judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the ''inscrutable face of a Sphinx'. 9. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar/District Programme Coordinator is without assigning any reason is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 10. This order will not restrain the respondents to pass fresh order, if so advice. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad