Letters Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2003. ---------- Against the order/Judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13171 of 2002. ---------- 1. Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna- 800 023. 2. Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-800 023. ....Respondents-Appellants. -Versus- 1. Shambhu Lal, Son of Sri Ghanshyam Das, resident of Safiabad, District-Munger, doing his business in the name and style of M/S. Shiv Shambhu Stone Works. 2. Awadhesh Kumar Sah, Son of Sri Sarju Prasad Sah, resident of Safiabad, District- Munger, doing his business in the name and Style of Jai Jagdamba Stone Works. 3. Smt. Uma Devi, wife of Mahendra Prasad Singh, resident of Safiabad, District-Munger, doing her business in he name and Style of M/S. Deoraha Stone Works. 4. Smt. Ranju Mehta, wife of Bimal Kumar Mehta, resident of Safiabad, District- Munger, doing her business in the name and style of M/S. Samrat Stones Works. 5. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7. District Magistrate, Munger...Respondents-Respondents 2nd set. ---------- -With- Letters Patent Appeal No. 278 of 2003. ---------- Against the order/ judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13208 of 2002. ---------- 1. Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-23. 2. Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-23. ...Respondents-Appellants. -Versus- 1. Trilok Kumar Singh, Son of Chandrika Prasad Singh, resident of Gaurpur, Safiabad, District-Munger, doing his business in the name and style of M/S.Jaipur Stone Works. 2. Shri Yashwant Kumar Singh, son of Laddu Prasad Singh, resident of Safiabad, District-Munger, doing his business in the name and style of M/S. Yashwant Kumar Singh Stone Works. 3. Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Singh, Son of Late Adhiklal Singh resident of Safiabad, District-Munger, doing his business in the name and style of M/S. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Stone Works. 2 4. Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, son of Late Pratap Narayan Singh, resident of Safiabad, District- Munger, doing his business in the name of M/S. Prakash Kumar Singh Stone Works..................................Petitioners-Respondents Ist set. ---------- -With- Letters Patent Appeal No. 285 of 2003. ---------- Against the order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13130 of 2002. ---------- 1. Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board,2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-800 023. 2. Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-800 023. ...Respondents-Appellants. -Versus- 1. M/S. Pawan Stone Works, Proprietor Shrawan Kumar Son of Ramanand Singh, Safiabad, Munger. 2. M/S. Shivtara Stone Works, Proprietor, Sarjan Prasad Yadav, Son of Lt. Chamak Lal Yadav, Bishunpur, Safiabad, Munger. 3. M/S. B.K.Stone Works, Proprietor,Baijnath, S/O Late Ram Bahadur Singh, Safiabad, Munger. 4. Sri Manoj Kumar, Son of Sri Pankaj Sodhwani, Gouripur, Safiabad, Munger. 5. M/S. Pankaj Stone Works, Proprietor, Sri Nand Kishore Pahuja, Son of Ramanand Prasad Singh, Safia Sarai, Munger.........................Petitioners-Respondent Ist set. 6. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7. Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 8. District Magistrae, Munger......Respondents- Respondents 2nd Set. For the Appellants: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate (In all the three cases). For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate(In all the three cases). ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ---------- Navin Sinha & D.K.Singh,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in all the three appeals. 3 The order under appeal proceeds on a short legal proposition, that an administrative order having civil consequences was required to be reasoned. Reasons have been held to be the essence of an order, a control on arbitrariness lending transparency to the decision making process. It gives an insight into the mind of authority of the grounds on which the order came to be passed. Reason form an integral part of the principles of natural justice. An order based on reasons enables judicial review by facilitating a decision by the court whether it was a proper and just order. It is trite law that an order has to be decided on the recitals contained in the order and the respondents can not be permitted to build up a case in the counter- affidavit as to what they intended to say. The impugned order proceeds on the premise of an error in the decision making process when the order of the Chairman was unreasoned and non-speaking. Recitals in the order sheet of the court are considered sacrosanct. If a litigant is aggrieved by a recital in the order his remedy lies in 4 preferring an application for correction of error before the same court first. The impugned order specifically records the concession made on behalf of the appellants that it had been their practice to pass unreasoned orders of the present nature and that they shall be more careful in future. The appeals are wholly frivolous. We were inclined to impose heavy costs but have refrained from doing so. The appeals are dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 22nd April, 2010. N.A.F.R./U.K. (Navin Sinha,J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)