IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13373 of 2009 1. MANORANJAN KUMAR 2. DR. KAMAKHYA KUMAR 3. BALRAM PANDIT 4. SUSHIL KUMAR 5. KUNAL KISHOR 6. BHAWESH MISHRA 7. JAI PRAKASH BHARTIYA 8. DR. VINOD KUMAR 9. DR. SANJAYKUMAR 10. ASHOK KUMAR 11. SUNITA KUMARI 12. DR. PANKAJ KUMAR 13. PRIYANJANA ACHARYA 14. PREM PRAKASH SHANKAR 15. SHILPI RANJAN 16. KIRAN KUMARI 17. AMARJIT KUMAR RAJ. Versus THE PATNA UNIVERSITY & ORS For the Petitioners : M/S Rajendra Prasad Singh Rajeev Kumar Singh & Onkar Kumar For the University : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha. ----------- 2. 27.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Patna University. The petitioners are students of postgraduate course in M.D./M.S. Some of them were granted admission in different colleges under a discipline in May, 2007. The second counselling was held in June, 2007, when they successfully opted for another discipline. Some of the petitioners secured admission in their respective disciplines in the second counselling. The regulations require acceptance of their thesis in their respective subject before they can be permitted to sit in the final examination. The acceptance of their thesis has been recommended by the Principal and Dean faculty of Patna University and Patna Medical college on 8.1.2009. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the final order 2 dated 17.9.2009 communicated under the pen of the Assistant Registrar, Patna University declining acceptance of their thesis in light of the Indian Medical Council Regulations. Learned counsel for the University sought to make submissions in support of the impugned order with regard to issues of attendance etc. of those who have joined a course after the second counselling in June, 2007 to urge that they are required to complete the minimum duration of classes/attendance etc. before their thesis can be accepted and they be permitted to appear in the examination. This Court is not persuaded to enter into the merits of the matter at this stage for reasons attributable to the Respondents alone. Any order passed by an administrative authority having civil consequences is required to be reasoned. An administrative order which is amenable to judicial review is all the more required to be reasoned. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that the reasons are heart and soul of the order and is one of the basic and necessary ingredients of the principles of natural justice. Reasons control arbitrariness. In absence of reasons, an order can easily be said an order to be arbitrary and whimsical. It is equally settled law that an administrative order will be decided on the recitals contained in the order itself and the Court shall not allow it to be supplemented in the counter affidavit. A bad order cannot be made good by a counter affidavit. The University is a learned institution. They have a 3 panel of legal advisers. If the University authorities still insist on passing orders contrary to the settled law in the belief that once the matter goes to the Court then they shall condescendingly disclose the reasons to the Court, this Court shall not permit them to do so. The ever increasing burdens of the Courts are the creation of orders, such as the present. Had the impugned order been reasoned, judicial review would have been facilitated and the litigation would have been brought to an end one way or the other. The Respondents themselves are to be blamed for the directions contained hereinafter. The impugned order dated 17.9.2009 is not sustainable in its present form, as it is clearly arbitrary, unreasoned and hinders judicial review. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application stands allowed. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents, to proceed afresh in accordance with law. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)