IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10437 of 2010 1. DARBHANGA DENTAL COLLEGE, MIRGHAYA CHAK, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, Q.M.R. RAHMAN, S/O FAZLUR RAHMAN, R/O MOHALLA RAHAMGANJ, P.S. LAHERIA SARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (DENTAL EDUCATION SECTION) NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 5. THE PRESIDENT, DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 6. THE SECRETARY, DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 7. THE L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 8. THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. ----------- 03. 16.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Dental Council of India, learned counsel for the Union of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section) as also the learned counsel for the L.N. Mithila University. The petitioner seeks recognition as a Dental College. The Dental Council of India has made inspection and submitted its report to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The petitioner through its Secretary represented against the report of the Dental Council of India to the 2 Ministry. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was called for a personal hearing and final order dated 15.7.2010 passed affirming the report of the Dental Council of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a very short submission to urge that, if the petitioner had represented against the report of the Dental Council of India, the Government was required to briefly discuss issues with regard to the nature of the report of the Dental Council of India, the objections raised by the petitioner to arrive at its own conclusion why the explanation given or objection raised by the petitioner was not acceptable. Affirming the report of the Dental Council of India bereft of the same is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner has been given a personal hearing. The question is not of the correctness of the decision of the Government of India affirming the report of Dental Council of India. What the petitioner questions is the decision making process. This Court upholds the submission of the petitioner that if he had raised objections, and the Government of India heard him on the objections, the minimum that was required 3 was that the final order was to contain a brief discussion of what were the findings of the Dental Council of India, what the petitioner had urged in defence and why the defence of the petitioner was not acceptable. The need and necessity for administrative orders to be reasoned has been emphasized time and again. An administrative order may have a quashi judicial. However when it contains a decision not purely administrative, but affecting the rights of others. The order dated 15.7.2010 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section) is held to be not sustainable in its present form for the aforesaid reasons. It is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law. Let the same be done preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)