Point of Law: An authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusions are based.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, which has been communicated to the petitioners' institution under the letter of the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, whereby he has directed the single operation of bank accounts of the petitioners' institution. He has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dated 18.08.2021 made by the petitioner and not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners' institution in accordance with law.

2. On 11th December, 2021, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned 31st July, 2021 has been without jurisdiction as the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has no power to pass such order, this Bench passed following order:

“Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 has been passed by respondent no.4-Finance and Account Officer (Basic), Mirzapur, which is without jurisdiction. He further submits that on communication letter dated 31.07.2021 sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, the order impugned has been passed by the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur on the same day, i.e. 31.07.2021.

With respect to the aforesaid facts, twice time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. However, inspite of letters being sent by the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, no one has turned up.

In such circumstances, this Court has no other option but to direct the respondent no.3-District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur to remain present before this Court on the next date fixed, i.e. 18.11.2021.

Put up this case on 18.11.2021 as fresh, on which date the respondent no.3 shall remain present before this Court alongwith all the relevant records.”

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, today, Mr. Gautam Prasad, District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur (respondent no.3 herein) is present in the Court today along with exemption application. The exemption application is taken on record.

4. On the pointed query being made by the Court as to under which authority of law, the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has passed the order dated 31st July, 2021 directing single operation of accounts of the petitioners' institution, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that the document dated 31st July, 2021, which has been signed by the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur is only a communication letter, which has been issued to the petitioners' institution under the order of the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, wherein he has directed single operation of accounts of the petitioners' institution, a copy of which has been brought on record at page-22 of the exemption application filed today.

5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit accompanied the exemption application, the future presence of Mr. Gautam Prasad is exempted unless directed otherwise.

6. Mr. P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents agree that the present writ petition may be decided at this stage, without calling for any further affidavits specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021 directing single operation of bank accounts of the petitioners' institution is in violation of principal of natural jus