JUDGMENT - K. SUKUMARAN, J.:---This writ petition challenges the order dated 4-6-1990 (Exhibit `B') passed by the second respondent Director of Education permitting the fourth respondent to open a new Standard VIII Class from 1990 onwards. Incidental reliefs also have been sought for. On 14-6-1990 rule was issued, with a direction for expendition. Ultimately it came up for final arguments on 22-8-1991. In the light of the arguments advanced at the Bar, we had our reservations about the supportive materials justifying the impunged order. A further affidavit was directed, by our order dated 22-8-1991, to assist the Court to advert to and evaluate the materials so called for. The affidavit has accordingly been filed. The petitioners filed a rejoinder. Arguments were continued on 9-9-1991.

2. It is unnecessary to refer to the details of the contentions in view of the course we propose to adopt. We may, however, indicate even for that purpose, an earlier order (Exhibit `A') dated 9-7-1986 passed by the Director, which declined the request for opening a new school as made by the very same fourth respondent herein. The first paragraph can be usefully extracted:---

"With reference to the above cited letters. I am directed to inform you that the case was re-examined by the Government from all angels and it is decided by the Government that there is no need of one more secondary school starting with Std. VIII in Morjim village, as the existing fulfledged secondary school namely Vidyprasarak High School within a distance of 1 km. is capable of absorbing any number of students in any class for the past 5 years at least on account of sufficient physical facilities which the school possess. Therefore, it is regretted that the permission sought to open Std. VIII during 1986-87 is hereby refused so as to avoid unhealthy competition".

There are naturally areas of controversy in relation to the facts existing or detected subsequently, in justification of the impunged order (Exhibit 'B')

3. We noticed two disturbing features in the issue of the order. One is the fact that it is issued in a cyclostyled form. This can be evidence of non-application of mind in given circumstances. Employment of such cyclostyled forms have been critically commented upon by judicial decisions as for example in Travancore-Rayon's case.

4. The second, and perhaps more important, feature is about the denial of an opportunity to the petitioners to put forward its contentions before the impugned order was passed. Doubtless, under Exhibit `A', the petitioners had earned a substantive right which barred the entry of another school within a 5 km. distance, on the basis of the findings contained therein. The order is certainly amenable to variation the strong expressions contained in Exhibit `A' notwithstanding. However, such a variation, would involve adverse consequences as well as the petitioners are concerned. It is now trite law that before such an order is passed, the party affected is afforded an opportunity to explain his stand. That is the mandate of law read into the statutory provisions empowering a statutory authority to act, and thereby affect, the rights of parties. This has admittedly not been done. For these reasons the impugned order is liable to be quashed. We do so.

5. The quashing of the impugned order, has necessarily to be followed by a fresh order passed after hearing of the affected parties, and considering the contentions of those parties. It requires no emphasis to state that such an order should be a speaking order and not a laconic and casual one. The findings supported by material and data should be the foundation for the fresh order to be passed by the second respondent. We issue a direction to pass such an order within an outer period of time of three months. The aggrieved party will certainly have the liberty resort to appropriate proceedings for the vindication of its grievances.

6. We have refrained from making any observations on the merits of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document