An administrative order must be reasonable and consider a party's submissions; failure to do so violates natural justice and can lead to the quashing of the order.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, which is affiliated with the respondent no. 1, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 by which the Petitioner has been de-affiliated; and

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent No.1 to forthwith restore the affiliation of the Petitioner for 2 units each in Electrician; Fitter; Health Sanitary Inspector and Computer Hardware & Network Maintenance Trades from academic session 2021-22 and to communicate the said status to the Respondent No.2; and

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to admit trainees for academic session 2021-22 and to take all necessary and consequential steps in this regard including providing access to their online portals and to reflect the name of the Petitioner in the category of ITI' s entitled to take admissions; and

(d) Pass any other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 de-affiliating the petitioner institute is wholly cryptic having been passed without furnishing any reason whatsoever. He however submits that in any event, the respondent no. 1 has mechanically accepted the inspection report submitted by the respondent no. 2 without dealing with the petitioner's plea that on 28.02.2020 when the inspection of the petitioner institute was carried out, the same was a restricted holiday and since the petitioner institute was observing it as a holiday, most of its staff members were not present in the institute. He therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside on this ground alone.

3. The petition is vehemently opposed by both the respondents. Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, has vehemently urged that in view of the deficiencies noted in the inspection report forwarded by respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 was justified in passing the impugned order of de-affiliation against the petitioner. He submits that although the impugned order does not contain any reason for de-affiliation, detailed reasons in nature of deficiencies are explicitly noted in Annexure I to the impugned order. He, therefore contends that the impugned order cannot be said to be an unreasoned order. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also supports the impugned order and contends that the inspection report relied upon by respondent no. 1 was based on a surprise inspection of the petitioner institute. The respondent no. 2 cannot be faulted for carrying out inspection on 18.02.2020 when it was admittedly never informed by the petitioner that it was adopting the said `restricted holiday' as a holiday in its institute.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, even though I am unable to agree with the petitioner's plea that the impugned order does not contain any reasons for de-affiliation, it is trite law that an order passed by an authority has to be read alongwith the annexure which form an integral part thereof. Once Annexure I to the impugned order clearly sets out the deficiencies found in the petitioner institute, it cannot be said that the impugned order is cryptic or is unreasoned. I however find that even though based on the inspection report forwarded by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2020 to the petitioner which was duly replied to, the respondent no.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order without even dealing with any of the detailed submissions made by the petitioner in its reply to the show cause notice. I therefore find merit in the petitioner's plea that the impugned order is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but is even otherwise arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has not been able to give any justification for the respondents' fai