JUDGMENT :

Piyush Agrawal, J.

We have heard Shri Azizur Rahman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3; whereby, the petitioner's candidature for Retail Outlet Dealership in Group - 1 category has been rejected and the same has been changed to Group - 3 category.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 25.11.2018, an advertisement was issued for selection of retail outlet dealership by the respondent - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for different locations. The petitioner, vide online application dated 21.12.2018, applied for the location on Dumariyaganj - Bansi road, Village - Sekhui, Tappa - Hallour, Block - Dumariyaganj, District - Siddharth Nagar. Thereafter, vide letter/e-mail dated 20.06.2019, the petitioner was declared successful in draw of lots for the retail outlet dealership in Group - 1 category and the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents and security amount. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner deposited the security amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.06.2019, along with the documents.

4. Thereafter, by the impugned letter/order dated 13.07.2019, the petitioner's candidature for Retail Outlet Dealership was changed from Group - 1 to Group - 3. The petitioner has been further informed that his candidature for retail outlet dealership may be considered for selection along with Group - 3 category as per the guidelines.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.07.2019 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and tries to justify the passing of the impugned order.

7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the respondent - Corporation has not recorded any conclusion in the impugned order and without assigning any reason, the category of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership has been changed from Group - 1 to Group - 3.

8. It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.

9. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, has observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:-

"10. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned author