IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1442 of 2010 1. RAJESH KANT JHA S/O SRI SHOBHA KANT JHA R/O VILL- HARIPUR DIHATOLA, P.S. KALUAHI, DISTT. MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF FINANCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 27/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 5.10.2009 visiting him with “Censure”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice was issued on 11.5.2009 for allegedly not meeting collection targets which was replied to on 30.5.2009 in detail setting out the matter under different heads. The impugned order of punishment is cryptic and non-speaking. It simply states that after considering the cause shown by him it has been decided to punish him by “Censure” to be entered in his character rolls for the year-2007-08. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order itself shows application of mind to the cause shown. He next prays for time to file a counter affidavit to explain in what manner the consideration was done. - 2 - It is trite law that an order of the authority shall have to be tested on basis of the recitals contained in the order. The order cannot be explained by materials in support of the order in the counter affidavit. This has been considered necessary so as not to permit the respondents to build up a defence in a proceeding before the Court where there may have been none originally. Otherwise, the authority would have passed a reasoned and speaking order. Reasons have repeatedly been held to be the heart and soul of an order lending transparency to administration and to facilitate judicial review. Reasons curb arbitrariness when the authority is well aware that his order may be amenable to judicial review and therefore he is required to disclose what passed his mind, in what manner the cause shown was considered and for what reason to be set out in the order it was found unacceptable. All these are missing in the order dated 5.10.2009 visiting the petitioner with a minor punishment. The order of punishment dated 5.10.2009 is set aside and the matter remanded to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order on the cause shown by the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. - 3 - It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the materials of the cause shown by the petitioner which is a matter in the exclusive prerogative of the authority in exercise his administrative powers. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)