An administrative order lacking substantiation through reasons is considered non-speaking and cannot withstand legal scrutiny as it violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner- WSHG praying for quashing the removal of the name of the petitioner-WSHG for procuring paddy for KMS 2025-26 from the Office Order/letter No.80/Judicial/MS/2026 dated 19.01.2026 under Annexure-7 passed/issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.2) and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 for the inclusion/insertion of the name of the petitioner WSHG in that Annexure-7 as a paddy procurement agency for KMS 2025-26 and to pass such other order(s) in favour of the petitioner.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per the final order dated 08.01.2026 passed in WPC No.33156 of 2025 by this Court, the Collector-cum-Chairman of the District Level Paddy Procurement Committee was directed to finalize the selection of WSHGs for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 considering the case of the petitioner-WSHG along with other WSHGs. On the basis of the said order dated 08.01.2026 passed in WPC No.33156 of 2025 by this Court, district level verification team was constituted as per the Order of the Opp. Party No.2 for verification and submission of report relating to the eligibility of the WSHG for the selection of paddy procurement for KMS 2025-26 on being headed by Deputy Collector, Revenue. During such verification by the Committee, the name of the Petitioner- WSHG was in Sl. No.3 as per Annexure-6. The committee members were fully satisfied with the infrastructures, equipments and materials of the petitioner-WSHG according to the guidelines issued by the FS & CW Department vide Letter No.21433 dated 18.12.2025 to be selected for the procurement of paddy, but, surprisingly, without any reason, the Collector and District Magistrate-Ganjam (Opp. Party No.2) as per the impugned Order/letter No.80/Judicial/MS/2026 dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-7) removed/excluded the name of the petitioner-WSHG and permitted other WSHGs for the procurement of paddy for KMS-2025-26. For which, the petitioner-WSHG has challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the removal of the name of the petitioner-WSHG from Annexure-7 (Order/Letter No.80/Judicial/MS/2026 dated 19.01.2026) and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 for the inclusion/insertion of the name of the petitioner in the said list, as the name of the petitioner has been removed/excluded illegally without assigning any reason/cause for such exclusion/removal.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is well evident from the impugned Order/letter No.80 dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-7) passed/issued by O.P. No.2 that, “no reason/cause has been assigned for the removal/exclusion of the name of the petitioner WSHG as a paddy procurement agency for KMS 2025-26.”

It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not backed/supported by any reason, then the said order is to be termed as a non-speaking order. That order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, such order is against the principles of natural justice, only due to non-assigning of any reason/cause for passing of the same.

On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(a) In a case between Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 that, In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisio