Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 5384 of 2022 Pradipa Kumar Das ..... Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 28.10.2025 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.08.09.2021 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-14. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner so made in his representation dtd.07.05.2021 under Annexure-12 was rejected. 4. It is the main contention of the Petitioner that without proper appreciation of the claim made by the Petitioner in his representation dtd.07.05.2021, such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.08.09.2021 under Annexure-14 without assigning any reason. Since reason is the soul of any order and no reason has been assigned while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87. Page 2 of 3. 4.1. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:- “8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based. xxx xxx xxx 10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”. 4.2. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:- “13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner”. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim so made in his representation dtd.07.05.2021 under Annexure-12. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the rejection, but it is fairly contended that since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim, the matter be remitted. Page 3 of 3. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and since it is fund that claim made by the Petitioner in his representation dtd.07.05.2021 under Annexure-12 has been rejected without assigning any reason, placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of this Court, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned rejection so made vide order dt.08.09.2021 under Annexure-14. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the relief claimed by the Petitioner in his representation dtd.07.05.2021 under Annexure-12. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with his representation dtd.07.05.2021 under Annexure-12 before Opp. Party No. 1 for compliance. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha