P. B. Bajanthri, J. – In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: –

“(i) For quashing the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Managing Director, B.S.E.I.D.C, Patna (Respondent No.3) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of blacklisting dated 11.01.2023 has been affirmed.

(ii) For quashing the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Chief Engineer, B.S.E.I.D.C. (Respondent No.4) whereby the Registration of the petitioner M/s. Excellent Construction has been blacklisted for a period of ten (10) years from the date of order on the ground that the experience certificate produced by him is wrong and forge.

And for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner has been blacklisted for alleged production of fake experience certificate or requisite document for the purpose of participating in Bid process. Petitioner has invoked remedy of Appeal before the Appellate Authority against the blacklisting order for a period of ten years and it was decided by the Appellate Authority-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. It is necessary to reproduce the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 01.03.2023, which reads as under: –

3. Perusal of the aforementioned Appellate Authority’s decision, it is evident that it is a non-speaking order, petitioner has filed a memorandum of appeal against the blacklisting order. On the other hand, Appellate Authority has only referred that petitioner has invoked remedy of Appeal. However, there is no consideration of respective contentions stated to have been raised by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal. Therefore, it is a clear case of non-application of mind in deciding the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner. On this short ground, petitioner has made out a case. Hence, impugned Annexure-6 dated 01.03.2023 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order/decision after due consideration of each contention stated to have been raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

4. The Appellate Authority is hereby directed to take note of certain judicial pronouncement how matters are required to be dealt with for example in the case of Kranti Associate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 (Para 47), elaborately considered as how the judicial, quasi-judicial and other orders should be. Para 47 read as under: –

“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial