Every order passed by any administrative body, quasi-judicial body, or even a judicial body must disclose the reason for the order so that the person affected by it can approach a higher forum or court to challenge the decision.

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.

1. HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. ASSAILING the order dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Fourth Bench, in O. A. 3166 of 2010 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed.

The impugned order reads such. (Quoted from the certified copy of the impugned order).

"Case No. O.A. 3166 of 2010 (LRTT) 23.03.11 Learned Counsel for the applicants is present. The Learned Government Representative is present. Learned Counsels Bappaditya Sen and Kakali Ghosh filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.5 and 6. Let the same be kept with the record. The application dated 22.12.2010 under section 10 read with section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 filed by the applicants praying for cancelling the notice dated 16.12.2010 (vide annexure 'p' to the original application) issued by the respondent No.3 B.L. and L.R.O. Matigara, District-Darjeeling is taken up for hearing on the point of admission. Perused the instant original application. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicants and Learned Government Representative. Learned Government Representative submits before this Tribunal that the instant original application should be rejected summarily as the concerned B.L. and L.R.O. was competent enough to issue notice in question. On perusal of the materials on record we find that there is/was no any illegality on the part of the B.L. and L.R.O concerned to issue notice dated 16.12.2010 and as such, the original application is rejected summarily. O.A. 3166 of 2010 is thus disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made over to the Learned Govt. Representative for communication to the authority concerned for compliance and xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for by the applicants, be delivered on payment of requisite Court fees. Sd/-P. K. Chakraborty Md. Ali Mondal"

3. ON a bare reading of the impugned order, we are not in a position to understand what was the purpose of the notice dated 16th December, 2010 issued by the B.L. and L.R.O. concerned and what was the statutory provision on the basis of which it was issued. Without making any discussion on that score, since learned Tribunal held that the notice as issued was not illegal, accordingly it appears that there was no reasoning in passing the order to reject the O.A. It is hit by the doctrine of speaking order.

4. IT is the basic principle of law that every order passed by any administrative body or any quasi judicial body and/or even by the judicial body must disclose the reason of the order so that the person concerned who is affected thereby may approach the higher forum and/or higher Court assailing the decision thereof. In the case Chairman, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharon Varshney and Ors., reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240, the Apex Court held that "reason must be given by the appellate or revisional authority even when affirming the impugned-decision". Reliance was placed in that case, the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudemv. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469, M.R. Industries Lunited v. Union of India reported in AIR 1966 SC 671 and Seamen Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981. In that case the Court explained and discussed the contra decision passed in the case S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 94 by explaining the said decision that in case of affirmation, no reason separately required to be given as held in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) which should be read as an observation meaning thereby that order of affirmation need not contain any elaborate reasoning as contained in original order, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reason need not be given in order of affirmance. The Court further explained in that case the earlier case of S