JUDGMENT S. P. Srivastava and K. N. Sinha, JJ.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.
2. Perused the record.
3. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy raised In this case, the learned standing counsel states that no counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed.
4. The only submission urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that even though this Court vide the order dated 4.3.2002, disposing of the Writ Petition No. 9320 of 2002 filed by the petitioner had clearly directed the concerned respondent to give a decision disposing of the representation of the petitioner, yet the said authority vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2002 has disposed of the representation giving conclusions only without assigning any reason in support of the aforesaid conclusions. It is also urged that while indicating the total liability of the petitioner to be 1327.70 qntls. including Arwa and Sela rice, in the representation dated 21.1.2002, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, it was clearly asserted that the petitioner was entitled to the adjustment of various items given in the representation which reduced the liability to only 98.15 qntls. of rice but under the impugned order, the liability had been determined to the extent of 1,252.38 qntls. of Arwa and Sela rice which is wholly unjustified.
5. It should not be lost sight of that as indicated by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836, "reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". In its later decision in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S. Ghandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716, the Apex Court had clarified that it was settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is a quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record.
6. It may, however, be clarified that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.
7. Learned standing counsel representing the respondents could not dispute that the concerned authority while disposing of the representation had not taken care to give any reason in support of the conclusions and no decision appears to have been taken as required vide the order of this Court referred to hereinabove. The matter, therefore, requires to be remitted to the concerned authority for proper decision in accordance with law.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on the record including those noticed hereinabove, this writ petition is disposed of finally requiring Deputy Regional Marketing Officer. Chandauli --respondent No. 4 to pass a fresh order disposing of the representation of the petitioner taking Into consideration the aspects raised by him therein on the basis of which liability is claimed to have been reduced indicating further the reasons in support of the conclusions after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The fresh order shall be passed within 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before him.
9. It is further provided that during the interregnum, no coercive steps shall be taken to recover the amount in dispute.