1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13911 of 2009 1. BIDYA SAGAR S/O SRI GIRJA RAM VILL.- SHORAMPUR, P.O.- SHORAMPUR, P.S.- JANIPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WEST KOSI CANAL CIRCLE, JAINAGAR, MADHUBANI 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WEST KOSI CANAL DIVISION, KHAJAULI (MADHUBANI) ----------- 2. 4.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP in service tenure. The respondents never questioned the same in his service tenure. After he retired on 30.9.2007 the office of the Accountant General on 24.10.2007 raised certain objections to the grant of ACP to him for reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the same on 27.11.2007 when the impugned order dated 18.3.2009 has followed. Learned counsel for the State contends that the impugned order dated 18.3.2009 has been passed in light of the objections of the Accountant General and the decision of the Screening Committee mentioned therein. When the Court queried from the counsel for the respondent what the deliberation of the Screening Committee were, prayer is made for adjournment to file counter affidavit. 2 The present is a classic example how the State generates litigation. Well aware of the fact that its order having civil consequences on an employee shall be questioned in a Court of law, it refuses to give reasons and passes a non-speaking order in the manner that power flows from the barrel of a pen. The petitioner has filed a detailed representation dated 27.11.2007 followed by a reminder representation dated 27.8.2008 and 15.11.2008. If the respondents consider the representations of the petitioner as a piece of trash retaining to themselves arbitrary powers to pass non-speaking orders and thereby directly hindering judicial review, the Court has little option but to set aside such arbitrary order. The order dated 18.3.2007 is non-speaking in nature and is accordingly set aside. Nothing in this order shall be construed as a restraint on the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, to facilitate judicial review, should the need arise for the same. The writ application stands disposed off. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)