Administrative decisions affecting anyone prejudicially must contain reasons for the conclusion, as emphasized by Section 47 of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others.

JUDGMENT :

With the consent, heard finally.

1. This petition filed under section (sic Article) 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 22.01.2021 Annexure P/11 whereby, the Managing Director opined that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2020 is not satisfactory and therefore, passed the order of debarment for a period of six months.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed various ground to assail the impugned action and order including the ground that without the petitioner was put to show cause notice on 16.10.2020 Annexure P/9, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 19.10.2020 Annexure P/10. The respondent despite receiving the said reply did not consider the defense taken in the said reply and jumped to a conclusion that the said reply "is not satisfactory". No reasons are assigned as to why the said conclusion was drawn that the reply is not satisfactory. In absence of reasons, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010)9 SCC 496, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He placed reliance on written statement and urged that there are various ground on the strength of which the impugned order is liable to be upheld.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. In the catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that debarring or blacklisting a contractor has drastic consequences on him. The said penal action cannot be passed without following the "due process" and without assigning adequate reasons.

6. The reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner has assigned detailed reasons in support of his defense. He mentioned about various clauses of NIT and prayed that no coercive action be taken against him.

7. In turn, the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 Annexure P/11 is passed debarring the petitioner for six months on the basis of a conclusion that reply filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory.

8. In our opinion, the aforesaid finding that reply is not satisfactory is a conclusion drawn by the Managing Director for which no reasons are assigned. Reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusion. In Kranti Associates (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in Administrative, Quasi Judicial and Judicial orders. The principles are summarized in para no. 47, which reads as under:-

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:-

(a) In India, the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable as component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and aut