IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.464 of 2011 SMT.MAMTA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 22/02/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, an elected Mukhiya of Emansarai Panchayat, District- Samastipur is aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2010 unseating her from the post in exercise of executive powers under Section-18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature. It refers to the nature of allegations, the cause shown by the petitioner and then at paragraph-10 arrives at an abrupt conclusion that the charges stood proved and that the defence of the petitioner was not acceptable. The submission is that the order being unreasoned and non-speaking in nature is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the State first submits that the petitioner does not seek quashing of the order dated 4.11.2010, but an order dated 4.11.2009 not on record. The submission is misconceived as it is apparent - 2 - that the mention of the year as 2009 in paragraph-1 is a typographical error when the letter number in the impugned order and at paragraph No.1 are common. Learned Counsel next submits that he may be permitted to file a counter affidavit to explain the reasons that may be available in the records why the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. When a statutory authority makes an order in exercise of statutory powers, the order has to be tested on basis of the recitals contained in the order and it cannot be supplemented by a counter affidavit in an effort to explain what were the grounds and what transpired the mind of the authority in passing the order. The Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 851 "Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi" has observed at paragraph 8 as follows :- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) - 3 - (at p. 18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” An order amenable to judicial review is required to be reasoned and speaking in nature. Reasons have been held to be the very heart and soul of an order and the ultimate control on arbitrariness. It ensures that the statutory authority understands his powers and acts within the confines of his powers. In absence of reasons the order becomes uncanalized and arbitrary. The citizen does not have the satisfaction to appreciate and understand that his defence has been considered. In , (2010) 7 SCC 678 East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, it has been held at paragraph 23 as follows :- “23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non- application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order.” - 4 - Even if this Court were to look into the discussion contained on the cause shown by the petitioner at paragraph-7 of the final order, it finds no reason to arrive at any different conclusion. There is no discussion in paragraph-7 (a, b, c, d, e) of the materials for the satisfaction of the statutory authority by a discussion of the nature of the allegations, the defence shown, to arrive at an independent application of mind why in the nature of the allegations, based on materials available, the defence was not acceptable. The conclusion in paragraph-10 being abrupt cannot improve upon it. The order dated 4.11.2010 is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)