Civil Writ Petition No. 10751 of 2007 ***** Randhir Singh Versus Chief Canal Officer, irrigation Department , Haryana and others Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7. ***** The petitioner is aggrieved against the order, Annexure P- 4, passed by the Chief Canal Officer, primarily on the ground that it is a cryptic order and does not give sufficient reasons in support thereof. I have perused the order. The grievance of the petitioner seems justified. The decision of the Chief Canal Officer reads as under:- “Both the parties heard in details. From the perusal of the Khaka plan it has been revealed that W/C C D is a suitable chak W/C for the irrigation of the appellants Sh. Raj Kumar and Ram Parsha etc. Thus for W/C C, D is sanctioned for compensation basis from the land of the Randhir son of Hari Singh.” It is thus seen that without disclosing any reasons and submissions made before the Chief Canal Officer (CCO) has simply found chak water course for the irrigation of the appellants Sh. Raj Kumar and Ram Parshad etc. is suitable and has accordingly sanctioned the water course on the compensation basis. It should have been appropriate if the chief Canal Officer had given reasons in Civil Writ Petition No. 10751 of 2007 -2- support of the view that he took. Recording of reasons for passing an order is not only desirable but necessary as it imparts clarity and reduces chances of arbitrariness in passing of the order. Recording of reasons also enables the High Court to ascertain if the decision arrived at is fair and just. It also enables the aggrieved party to demonstrate that reasons on which the order is based are erroneous. Obligation to record reasons also operates as check against possible arbitrary action of executive authority vested with quasi- judicial power. The impugned order as such cannot be sustained on this ground and that it is a non speaking order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Chief Canal Officer for deciding the same afresh. While doing so, he will give reasons in support of the view that he ultimately takes. Parties through their counsel directed to appear before the Chief Canal Officer on 2.4.2009, who shall afford an opportunity of hearing and pass an order afresh. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. March 9, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE