Patna High Court
M/S Vijayshree Press vs The State Of Bihar on 1 September, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2076 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Vijayshree Press, Panchvati Chowk, Ward No. 18, Gangjala, P.S. -
Saharsa, District - Saharsa through its Proprietor Rajiv Kumar, aged about 49
years, male, Son of Late Ramchandra Prasad Bhagat, resident of Punchvati
Chowk, Ward No. 18, Gangjala, P.S. - Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal, Jannayak Karpoori Thakur Medical College and Hospital,
Madhepura.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Advocate General.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 01-09-2025
In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):
"(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order contained in
memo no.50 dated 10-01-2025 issued by the
Principal, Jannayak Karpuri Thakur Medical
College, Madhepura whereby the petitioner Firm
has been blacklisted for four years on nonest
grounds without considering or applying mind over
the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of letter no.68 dated 15-01-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2076 of 2025 dt.01-09-2025
2/6
2025 issued by the Principal, Jannayak Karpuri
Thakur Medical College, Madhepura whereby a
separate order has been issued for blacklisting of
the petitioner Firm for four years for the same
cause of action without considering the explanation
or applying mind over the explanation submitted by
the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the show cause notice
contained in letter no.952 dated 15-11-2024 issued
by the Principal, Jannayak Karpuri Thakur Medical
College, Madhepura whereby a notice has been
issued for blacklisting of the Firm of the petitioner
without mentioning the provision under which the
blacklisting is to be made despite the fact that this
Hon'ble Court had issued specific direction
regarding the same in order dated 09-05-2024
passed in CWJC No.2404/2024.
(iv) For staying the operation of the order
of blacklisting as contained in memo no.50 dated
10-01-2025
and letter no.68 dated 15-01-2025
during the pendency of this writ application.
(v) For any other direction, which your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. Perusal of the impugned action of the respondents
dated 10.01.2025 read with 15.01.2025, it is crystal clear that
there is a total non-application of mind on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2076 of 2025 dt.01-09-2025
concerned respondent for the reasons that before blacklisting the
petitioner there was a notice issued on 15.11.2024 for which
petitioner had submitted his reply on 25.11.2024, thereafter the
concerned authority proceeded to pass order on 10.01.2025
followed by another order on 15.01.2025. Both the orders do
not specify what are the contentions raised by the petitioner in
his reply to the show cause notice and its analysis as to how
those contentions are not tenable. The official respondents are
exercising quasi judicial functions insofar as blacklisting.
Therefore, they must pass a detailed and speaking order after
due consideration of each of the contention raised by the
concerned aggrieved person. On this issue, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited
Versus Union of India and others, reported in (2010) 13
Supreme Court Cases 427, in paragraph-40 has rendered
number of points to be considered by the quasi judicial
authority. Paragraph-40 reads as under:
"40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which
are set out below : (SCC pp. 510-12)
"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2076 of 2025 dt.01-09-2025
(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
a 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
lifeblood 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
authorities who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate
by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
Patna High Court CWJC No.2076 of 2025 dt.01-09-2025
system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision-making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or
'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the
sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to
errors but also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor(1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] ,
EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847
(CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decisions'.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play
a vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2076 of 2025 dt.01-09-2025
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of 'due process'."
The same shall be taken note of by the concerned
authority.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case so
as to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 read
with the orders dated 15.01.2025 and 15.11.2024 and they are
set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to
proceed afresh after due consideration of the petitioner's reply
to the show cause notice strictly in terms of the cited decision
and complete the proceedings within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of this order.
4. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands allowed.
5. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.09.2025.
Transmission Date NA
