An administrative order need not state the reasons for which it has been passed, but it must be supported by good reasons available in the records.

In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.6.90 of the Govt. of Manipur in the Revenue Department, wherein the State Govt. of Manipur has cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai Village as a separate village and has further ordered that hill houses which formed T.Lailoiphai Village but originally belong either to Molzol "Village or Lungngil Village shall continue to pay hill house/ revenue taxes, etc through their respective chiefs to the Revenue Authority concerned.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner claims to be the Chief of T. Lailoiphai Village and filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, for allowing him to pay hill house taxes, etc of his village separately. The Sub Divisional Officer, Churachandpur Sub Division, then submitted a report stating therein mat the prayer of payment of hill house taxes, etc in the name of T. Lailoiphai may be considered on the ground of administrative and developmental convenience. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, allowed the petitioner to pay hill house taxes, etc in the name of T. Lailoiphai Village separately by his order dated 13.1.86 in Hill Misc Matter No.3/86. The respondent Nos.4 and 5, Chiefs of Molzol Village and Lungngil Village, respectively, however, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, stating, inter alia, that T. Lailoiphai Village did not have any separate identity and the petitioner did not have twenty families which are required for payment of hill house taxes, etc separatetly and on the basis of the said complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, passed orders on 31.1.86 cancelling his earlier order 13.1.86. The said order dated 31.1.86 was thereafter revoked by the State Govt. of Manipur in the Revenue Department by order dated 20.2.86. But in order; dated 24.4.86, the Govt. of Manipur in the Revenue Department, stated mat until a 'final decision is taken on receipt of report from the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, the order dated 20.2.86 was stayed. The Govt. of Manipur in the Revenue Department then by its order dated 29.5.86 cancelled the said order dated 24.4.86 but finally by the impugned order dated 14.6.90, the Govt. of Manipur in the Revenue Department cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai Village as a separate village and ordered that hill houses which formed T. Lailoiphai Village but originally belonged either to Molzol Village or to Lungngil Village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc through their respective Chiefs to the concenred Revenue Authority.

3. Mr. TNK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.6.90 is not a speaking order and does not contain any reasons and is, therefore, arbitrary. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of VV Saraf vs. New Educational Institute & others, AIR 1986 SC 2105, and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yanglung & another vs. State of Manipur & another, AIR 1993 Gauhati 77 (1992 (2) GLJ 147), in support of his submissions that where an order does not contain reasons, it has to be quashed by the Court. He further contended that the impugned order dated 14.6.90 was violative of principles of natural justice and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the said order was passed affecting the right of the petitioner to pay separate hill house taxes, etc in respect of the houses located at T. Lailoiphai Village. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yanglung & others vs. State of Manipur (supra) for the proposition that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice has to be quashed by the Court. Mr. INK Singh in particular pointed out that although the impugned order dat