IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1346 of 2011 ABHIYANTA KUMARI @ ABHINYATA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj unseating her from the post of Mukhiya Makhdumpur District-Jehanabad in exercise of powers under Section 18(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The Court does not consider the same necessary as the order dated 3.1.2011 being quasi-judicial in nature falls for judicial review by the Court. The respondents cannot improve upon or add to the order beyond what is contained in the recitals. The Court is informed at the Bar that elections to the Panchayats including for the post of Mukhiya are proposed to be notified on the 21st of February, 2011. The consequences of an order under Section 18(5) of the Act debar a person from contesting the election for the next five years. Learned counsel submits that after a show cause notice for alleged irregularities committed in the 2 appointment of Panchayat Teachers she was removed by order dated 29.7.2009 under Section 18(5) of the Act. She questioned the same before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7546 of 2009. The Court noticed the error in the decision making process, set aside the order, giving direction for fresh notice and fresh orders to be passed in accordance with law. Assailing the fresh order it is submitted that it does not display application of mind to the allegations, the cause shown by the petitioner, the comments of the District Magistrate furnished on the show cause followed by independent application of mind by the Secretary displaying consideration of issues, what transpired the mind of the Secretary as to why the defence of the petitioner was not acceptable, rendering the order unreasoned and non-speaking in nature visiting the petitioner with very serious consequences. Counsel for the State sought to support the impugned order by suggesting that it does reflect application of mind and consideration of the materials that were placed before the authority, even it is not fully reflected in the order, and urges that for the aforesaid reason he had sought time to file counter affidavit. An order passed in exercise of quasi judicial 3 powers amenable to judicial review would require to be reasoned and discussed. It must display full transparency reflecting that the authority took into consideration all relevant materials, ignoring irrelevant materials, followed by a process of reasoning and discussion, what was the defence shown in the nature of the allegation and for what reason it was not acceptable. This shall be the ultimate control on arbitrary exercise of power. More so, when an elected person is sought to be removed not by exercise of democratic power of a “No Confidence Motion” but by a short cut method using executive powers. The flexibility that may be available in the former situation shall be replaced by the same rigorous standard of scrutiny in the latter. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7546 of 2009 relying upon A.I.R. 1974 SC 87 (Union of India Vs. M.L. Capoor) adequately noticed that the earlier order dated 29.7.2009 was unreasoned and non-speaking in nature. It was held that reasons are the link between the materials and the conclusion and disclose how the mind was applied revealing nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion. If the decision was bald facing the citizen with a fate accompli the order shall stand vitiated 4 completely. If despite the caution given by the Court the respondents in Executive power considered it absolute in its own domain, the Court, when such an order is questioned has no option but to set aside the same. The impugned order dated 3.1.2011 is set aside. An order in teeth of and contrary to the directions of the Court is void ab-initio. The Court is not persuaded to make repeated remand to the authorities as that would only amount to giving them a benefit for their own lapses. If despite the benefit of a panel of efficient legal advisors available the State officials insist on passing orders in exercise of absolute power, there is little the Court can do about it but to set aside such orders. The order dated 3.1.2011 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)