1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3144 of 2010 1. BASHISHT KUMAR S/O SRI RAMDHANI SAW R/O VILL.- GARSANDA, P.O.- GARSANDA P.S. & DISTT.- JAMUI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAMUI 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAMUI 3. IN CHARGE DEPUTY COLLECTOR DISTRICT INFORMATION CUM PUBLIC GRIEVANCE CELL, JAMUI 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JAMUI SUBDIVISION, JAMUI 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JAMUI 6. SARPANCH, GRAM KACHAHARI GARSANDA, P.O.- GARSANDA, DISTT.- JAMUI ----------- 2. 31.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Residence being one of the conditions of eligibility the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery, Village- Garsanda enclosing proof of residence at Village Garsanda issued by the Block Development Officer dated 4.10.2007. The petitioner came to be selected and started discharge of duties after an appointment letter was issued on 24.10.2007. On 5.12.2007 he was issued a show cause notice by the Block Development Officer for cancellation of the residence certificate, and consequent cancellation of appointment on the ground of being a resident of Village Neemarang. The petitioner replied on 11.12.2007 making specific statements of fact and enclosing necessary documentary evidence in support of his claim tobe a resident of Garsanda. The impugned order dated 14.12.2007 then came to be passed cancelling the earlier residence certificate issued to him holding that he was a resident of village Neemarang and not Garsanda supported by an enquiry report submitted by the Block Welfare Officer. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission that the impugned order relies on a report of enquiry conducted by the Block Welfare Officer behind the back of the petitioner without any knowledge or information and opportunity to present his defence. The Block Development Officer exclusively relies on the ex-parte report without discussing or dealing with the cause shown by the petitioner making specific statements of fact along with documentary evidence in support of his residence at Garsanda. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner in his reply to the show cause himself acknowledges that he stays at Village Neemarang for purpose of education. There is no occasion for this court to go into the adjudication of facts in exercise of the powers of judicial review. If the petitioner had furnished documentary evidence along with statements of facts in support of his residence at Garsanda they were required to be adequately dealt with and considered before passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2007. For that reason the order dated 14.12.2007 and the enquiry report dated 12.9.2009 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Block Development Officer to furnish all materials on which he proposes to rely, to the petitioner with an opportunity to defend his case including personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. 3 The petitioner never acknowledged being a resident of Neemarang. He asserted that he was a resident of Garsanda but stayed at Neemarang for educational purposes only. An administrative order which does not consider and deal with relevant issues is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable when examined in powers of judicial review. Needless to state that the issue of termination of the petitioner from the post of Secretary on that ground and withholding of any salary shall ultimately depend on the final order to be passed on his eligibility based on the residence certificate of village Garsanda. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)