AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In pursuance to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31625 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 42335 of 2003 at Allahabad, the Director of Social Welfare had decided the controversy by an order dated 14.1.2007 against which respondent had approached the State Government. The State Government by impugned order dated 27.2.2009 had set aside the decision taken by the Director.
It has been argued that Director has got no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. However, petitioner''s counsel submits that since the impugned order has been passed in pursuance to decision of this Court Director was very well entitle to pass the said order.
While assailing the impugned order passed by the State Government it has been submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the impugned order is nonspeaking one and does not disclose the reason for setting aside the order passed by the Director Social Welfare.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties'' counsel and perused the record.
A plain reading of the impugned order it appears that State Government had set aside the order passed by the Director and recorded a finding that Dr. Jainuddin Khan shall continue as Manager of the institution in question. The finding recorded at the face of record seems to be nonspeaking and without reason.
It is settled proposition of law that even administrative order should be well reasoned and be passed with due compliance of principle of natural justice. The impugned order at the face of record seems to be nonspeaking one it suffer from substantial illegality and seems to be an outcome of arbitrary exercise of power. Writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 27.2.2009 as contained in Annexure1 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. However, liberty is given to the State Government to pass afresh order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
It shall be open to the parties to make submissions before the State Government and invite the attention towards the statutory provisions on which they places reliance while assailing or defending the orders passed by the State Government.
State Government shall decide the controversy expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.