The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for administrative and quasi-judicial authorities to provide clear and cogent reasons for their decisions, as it is essential for fairness, transparency, and the exclusion of arbitrariness in decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Certificate Officer (Mining), North Chotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh (the respondent no. 4) in Certificate Case no. 11 of 2014-15, whereby the petitioner’s objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (in short, “the Act, 1914”) has been rejected summarily without recording any reason whatsoever merely on the basis of request made by the Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 3) and, thereafter, demand notice dated 16.09.2020 has been issued against the petitioner for recovery of the certificate amount of Rs.76,80,000/- and interest of Rs.61,74,720/- accrued on the said original amount (total Rs.1,38,54,820/-).

2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 while passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 has not assigned any reason. It has simply been observed in the said order that in the light of request made by the requisitioning officer, the objection filed by the petitioner against recovery of certificate amount is rejected and thereafter the office has been directed to issue demand letter for realisation of the said amount.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 justifying the certificate amount for which the requisition of Rs.76,80,000/- was filed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 2). Learned counsel for the respondents also raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 against the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2017, it appears that an application was made by the requisitioning officer to reject the petitioner’s objection filed against the certificate amount and on the basis of the said application, the petitioner’s objection has been rejected directing the office to issue demand letter for realisation of the certificate amount.

6. Undoubtedly, the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 is completely unreasoned and cryptic. It is a settled law that the administrative/quasi-judicial authority while taking a decision particularly if the same is going to adversely affect a person, is required to assign proper reason so as to enable him/her to at least know as to on what basis, his/her case has been rejected. Moreover, assigning reason in an order checks arbitrary exercise of power and suggests proper application of mind.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 has held that not only an administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. It has further been held that reason introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum.

8. In the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496] this Court af