IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1060 of 2010 LALIT NARAYAN YADAV, Son of Yogendra Yadav, resident of Village- Sugauna P.S.- Rahika, District- Madhubani :---Petitioner . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary cum-Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Commissionary, Darbhanga. 4. The District Collector, Madhubani. 5. The Additional Collector, Incharge Distt. Revenue Section, Madhubani :-- Respondents. ----------- 2. 21.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the settlee of Basauli Cattle Market within Rahika Block in the District of Madhubani for the financial year which is to end on 31st March, 2010. He has taken such settlement pursuant to notice bearing memo No. 70 dated 25th May, 2009, Annexure-1, perusal whereof indicates that the reserve Jama for the settlement was fixed at Rs. 12,16,700/- and on the basis of the amount of reserve Jama the parties participated in the bid and petitioner was awarded settlement on payment of Rs. 12,21,000/-. Later, the amount of reserve Jama was sent to the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division for approval. The learned Commissioner considered the amount of reserve Jama vide proceedings taken on 06.08.2009 and found that the amount of reserve Jama of Basauli Cattle market has been wrongly indicated in the notice dated 25th May, 2009 as Rs. 12,16,700/- in place of Rs. 10,58,000/-. The proceedings dated 6.8.2009 of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division has been communicated to all concerned under Memo No. 374 dated 17.8.2009, Annexure-2. Petitioner having learnt about the fact that the reserve Jama amount was wrongly indicated in the notice dated 25.5.2009 represented before the Additional Collector, Madhubani under representation dated 02.09.2009, Annexure-3 to proportionately reduce the settlement amount as the bid amount - 2 - offered by him was nominally higher than the amount shown as reserve Jama in the notice dated 25th May, 2009. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier the registration cost was not being taken from the settlees of the markets but the authorities are now insisting that petitioner should pay the registration cost and to that effect they have passed an order bearing Memo No. 1128dated 03.10.2009, Annexure-4. Perusal of the said order dated 03.10.2009 further indicates that the representation of the petitioner for proportionate reduction in the settlement amount has also been rejected in the last paragraph of the said order but from that paragraph it does not appear that any reasons in support of the order not to reduce the settlement amount has been provided in the order. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State and having perused the order dated 03.10.2009, Annexure-4, I am satisfied that the authorities have not indicated any reasons in support of their decision contained in order dated 03.10.2009, Annexure-4. The decision bereft of reasons is no decision at all, accordingly, order dated 03.10.2009, Annexure-4 is set aside with direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation raising both the submissions which have been noted in this order which should be considered by the Collector of the district by passing appropriate order in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)