Civil Writ Petition No.8417 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8417 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.05.2011 Harjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Harjit Singh has applied for the permission to set-up a Rice Milling Manufacturing Enterprise at village Ghania, District Faridkot, vide application(Annexure P-1), after obtaining Certificate from the Pollution Board and completing all other formalities. So much so, the local authorities were stated to have recommended his case, but still his request was declined by the Director, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.2(for brevity “the Director”) by way of impugned order dated 03.02.2011(Annexure P-11). 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-11), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State and Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notices on behalf of the respondents, at the asking of the Court. Civil Writ Petition No.8417 of 2011 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 5. As is evident from the record that the petitioner applied for the permission to instal a Rice Milling Manufacturing Enterprise at village Ghania, vide application(Annexure P-1), after obtaining Certificate from the Pollution Board and completing all other formalities, but his request was declined by the Director, by passing a single-line cryptic order dated 03.02.2011(Annexure P-11), which is as under:- “That it is decided after considering the application given by you to set up a Sheller of 2 tons, milling capacity is dismissed.” 6. As is clear that, the impugned order is non-speaking, non-reasoned and lacks application of mind. Such authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to indicate the valid reasons, for arriving at a conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, in the right perspective. 7. It is now well-settled principle of law that every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record, because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. 8. The importance of passing speaking and reasoned order was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held(para 8) as under:- “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes the chances of Civil Writ Petition No.8417 of 2011 3 arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 9. Therefore, since, the impugned order(Annexure P-11) is a cryptic and non-speaking order, so, it cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 03.02.2011(Annexure P-11) is set aside and the Director(respondent No.2) is again directed to decide the matter afresh, by passing a speaking order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. May 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE