IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10169 of 2006 KEDAR LAL CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Rupak Kumar & Nishant Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. M. Mishra, JC to G.A. 7 For P.M.C. : Mr Ajay Bihari Sinha,Advocate For Respondent No. 4: Mr Ujjawal Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---------- 5. 24.09.2008 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, learned Counsel for the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation and the learned counsel for private respondent no. 2. There is a tussle for seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 for the post of Sanitary Inspector and consequently Chief Sanitary Inspector. Respondent no. 4 has stolen a march over the petitioner with which the latter is aggrieved. Reliance is placed on order no., 1480 dated 27.8.2003 of the Municipal Corporation on behalf of the petitioner to urge ineligibility of respondent no. 4 to be declared senior to the petitioner and promoted to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector. Respondent no. 4 has sought to justify his promotion by reference to the eligibility standards applicable when he was sent for training as Sanitary Inspector. The writ application was filed on 21.8.2006. The respondent Corporation was well aware that the matter is under judicial review. What surprises this Court no end is the unconcerned attitude of the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation notwithstanding the same and the passing of a non-speaking order hindering judicial review. The law stands well settled that one of the tenets of the principles of natural justice, is the need to give reasons in support of an order. This requirement has been read in by Courts to prevent arbitrariness. When the requirement to give reason is there the action has to be supported by discussion as distinct from an arbitrary order for which no discussion is required. The parties also get the satisfaction that their case has been adequately considered notwithstanding what the result may be. This ensures the rule of law as distinct from rule of men where arbitrary orders are passed sans no reason. Learned Counsel for the State and the Municipal Corporation found it very difficult to justify the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the Town Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation rejecting the claim for seniority of the petitioner. The argument of respondent no. 4 that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy against the order dated 18.3.2008 by way of an application drawing attention of the State Government under Section 65 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2000 read with Section 67 thereof, does not persuade this Court as that would only spur the authorities of the Municipal Corporation to keep passing arbitrary orders. This Court has purposely refrained from making any observation on the merits of the matter so as not to prejudice case of either the petitioner or respondent no. 4. The order dated 17.3.2008 is set aside. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner and respondent no. 4 determining the issue of seniority in accordance with law inter se within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. In the event of non-cooperation from either the petitioner or respondent no. 4 the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to also proceed exparte, if necessary, but only after recording his satisfaction to that effect. If such determination is not done by respondent no.2 within the time prescribed, the issue of inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 shall stand as inconclusive when no benefit thereunder shall remain available thereafter to respondent no. 4. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)