IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6909 of 2010 1. MADARSA DARUL FUNOON,GHUGHRI TANR, GAYA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY JAMILUR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB R/O GHUGHRI TAND, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTT-GAYA, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION , DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PATNA 4. THE CHAIRMAN , BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD PATNA 5. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER GAYA 7. MADARSA IRSHADUL ULOOM , THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TEKARI, GAYA ----------- 2/ 19/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institution filed C.W.J.C. No.17761/09 for publication of results. That aroused the ire of the respondent Board leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 4.3.2010 cancelling the recognition of the petitioner institution. The writ petition specifically avers that the cancellation has been done without notice to show cause and grant of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent Board very fairly submits that he is not in a position to demonstrate from the impugned order that notice was - 2 - issued to the petitioner before cancellation and that after service of the same the petitioner refused to respond leading to the ex parte order or that if a reply was filed, in what manner it was considered. This Court considers the same as sufficient justification to set aside the order dated 4.3.2010. The law stands settled that no order adverse to a person can be passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. It is equally well settled that an order having adverse civil consequence is required to be reasoned and discussed to facilitate judicial review. It has already been held that the impugned order does not discuss compliance with the principles of natural justice. The order dated 4.3.2010 is accordingly set aside, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)