JUDGMENT

1 Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. The main ground of challenge to the impugned orders dated 16.8.2021, (Ann.P-13) and dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17) before this Court is based on the propriety of decision making process.

3. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner- college which was enjoying the recognition was put to a show cause notice on 15.7.2021, (Ann. P-9). The petitioner, in turn filed its detailed reply, dated 19.7.2021. The respondents, by the impugned order dated 16.8.2021 cancelled the recognition for the sessions 2020-2021 for GNM Course. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a representation as per rule 8 of the Recognition Rules before the Council. The said representation running in five pages and preferred on 28.8.2021, (Ann. P-16) was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P17).

4. Criticizing these orders, Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both the orders, the respondents have not assigned a single reason as to why the reply/representation preferred by them did not suit the Council. In absence of any reason, the impugned order runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and must be termed as arbitrary in nature. In addition, it is submitted that rule 8 of the Recognition Rules, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that the representation must be decided by affording an opportunity of hearing. The rejection order of representation dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17) is passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. For these twin reasons, both the orders needs to be interfered with.

5. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has supported both the orders and urged that although orders aforesaid do not contain any reason, the reason can be gathered from the reply filed by the Council. He submits that in view of the reply filed by the Council, no case is made out for interference.

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. A conjoint reading of the show cause dated 13.7.2021, (Ann. P-9) and its reply (Ann. P-10) leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioner has given certain reasons as to why his case does not fall within the ambit of rule 6 (5) of the Recognition Rules. The rejection order dated 16.8.2021 shows that the respondents have mentioned about the date and details of the said show cause notice and factum of receiving the reply of the petitioner. Thereafter, by quoting the rule, the recognition has been cancelled. There is no iota of reason assigned in the impugned order as to why the defence taken by the petitioner in the reply was not found to be trustworthy to the Council.

9. Another rejection order dated 23.11.2021 suffers from same infirmity. As noticed, representation of petitioner dated 28.8.2021 is running in five pages but the same was rejected by a single stroke of pen without assigning a single reason. Thus, the singular question before us is whether such rejection orders can sustain judicial scrutiny.

10. We will be failing in our duty if we would not consider the argument of Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 based on the return filed.

11. By filing return, an attempt is being made to give life to the rejection orders dated 16.8.2021, (Ann.P-13) and another rejection order dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17).

12. This point is no more res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 opined that when validity of an order of the statutory authority is called in question, the validity of order needs to be examined on the basis of grounds mentioned