IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12148 of 2007 RAJESHWAR PD.NARAIN SINGH &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7 9.07.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 5.2. 2008, a show cause has been filed by Sri SANT KUMAR UPADHYAY, the then Joint Director of Consolidation. Mr. Upadhyay who is also personally present in this Court has admitted that while passing the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 he had committed a mistake by not assigning any reason in support of his conclusion. He has also in his defence, produced his some of the earlier orders to show that normally he used to exercise such quasi judicial power with almost caution and had disposed of the revision application by reasoned orders strictly in accordance with law. For the reasons mentioned in the show cause reply of Mr. Upadhyay the same is accepted. On merits, this Court would found that the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 being a quasi judicial order containing no reasons at all for the conclusion arrived therein cannot be sustained. In fact, from the impugned order it would be clear that the only reason given for allowing the claim of the respondent No.6 has been recorded in the following terms. 2 ”dkxtkr ,oa lk{; dk foLr`r fooj.k iqujh{k.k okn la[;k 15/2001 ij gSA vkosnd viuk nkok izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgs gSA ” In the view of the fact that the impugned order is a quasi judicial order, the requirement of passing a reasoned order cannot be waived. Reference in this connection to the judgment of Siemens Engg.& Mfg. Co Vs. Union of India AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1785 “Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them. It incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding differential duty were quasi-judicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd., C.A.No.245 of 1970 decided on 17-12-1975 3 (SC). But, unfortunately, the assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated 8th December, 1961. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram parte, a basic 4 principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Government of India also failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision application. But we may presume that in rejecting the revision application, it adopted the same reason which prevailed with the collector. The reason given by the Collector was, as already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it would, therefore, have been better if the Government of India had given proper and adequate reasons dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants while rejecting the revision application. We hope and trust that in future the Customs Authorities will be more careful in adjudicating upon the proceedings which come before them and pass properly reasoned orders, so that those who are affected by such orders are assured that their case has received proper consideration at the hands of the Customs authorities and validity of the adjudication made by the Customs authorities can also be satisfactorily tested in a superior tribunal or Court………………..” In that view of the matter the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Director, Consolidation who would now dispose of the Revision Case No. 38 of 2007 of the petition afresh in accordance with law in the length of the observations made 5 above and by a reasoned order. This application is accordingly allowed. There would be however, no order as to costs. Personal appearance of Sri SANT KUMAR UPADHYAY is also dispensed with. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)