An administrative order capable of affecting the rights of parties must be a reasoned order, conforming to the principles of natural justice, and failure to provide specific reasons for such a decision renders it liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be the director of an old age home at Kalady and asserts that it holds a valid registration till 31.12.2026. However, pursuant to a visit of some of the Board Members of the second respondent, an inspection was carried out pursuant thereto, and petitioner was served with Ext.P3, directing the petitioner to appear before the second respondent. Subsequently, petitioner filed Ext.P5, requesting for a copy of the inspection report dated 04.02.2025 to be provided to him, and also requested for the return of the administrative records that were seized. However, the second respondent by Ext.P6 order dated 22.04.2025, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is conducting the old age home in violation of the laws and hence, cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Respondents 4 to 7, who are neighbours impleaded themselves in the writ petition and filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that the petitioner had fabricated the certificate of recognition, which had actually expired on 31.12.2022, and further that there is total improper management and conduct of the old age home that too against the provisions of law. According to the contesting respondents, though petitioner is allowed to accommodate only 25 inmates in the institution, admittedly there are more than 60 inmates living there, and the institution does not even have basic facilities to accommodate such a large number of inmates. It is also stated that the institution does not have a proper waste management system, and waste from the old age home is being dumped into the nearby premises, causing serious prejudice and hazards to the neighbours, including the contesting respondents. It is further stated that the nearby well water has already been contaminated due to the dumping of waste by the petitioner, and the Pollution Control Board has already issued a closure intention notice, owing to improper waste management by the institution.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and that there is no reference to any reason for directing closure of the petitioner’s establishment. It was also submitted that the contentions raised by respondents 4 to 7 are without any basis and the same does not find any reference in the impugned order as well, and therefore, the same cannot be taken into reckoning.

4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7, on the other hand, submitted that the institution being conducted by the petitioner does not comply with the statutory regulations due to the indiscriminate dumping of waste all around the property and in the nearby vicinity, which is affecting the contesting respondents and other neighbours. It was also submitted that petitioner is running an old age home with 60 inmates, whereas the maximum permissible limit is only 25, which itself indicates that the impugned order does not warrant any interference, as it clearly states that the institution is being conducted without compliance with the rules and regulations.

5. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

6. Though respondents 4 to 7 have raised various contentions, this Court notices that the impugned order does not mention any reason for cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner, other than an observation that the old age home is being conducted in violation of law. What are the violations, or were those violations brought to the notice of the petitioner, and how was it countered by the petitioner are not matters that are discernible from the impugned order. It is evident that Ext.P6 is a non-speaking order. Th