R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) BASIC Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia (here -in -after referred to as the B.S.A.) by his order dated 21 -8 -1988 had recognised the Petitioner 's committee of Management with Sri Kapil Deo Singh as manager of Janta Vidvalaya, Singhpur, Ballia (herein after referred as the college). It appears that some representation was made against the aforesaid order and in that connection B.S.A. sent a letter to the Petitioner for appearing before him on 20 -7 -1988. This letter was however, mot received by the Petitioner till 20 -7 -1988 and was received on 22 -7 -1988 and the Petitioner accordingly made an application on 23 -7 -1988 before the B.S.A. for fixing another date. The B.S.A. without fixing any other date passed the impugned order on 8 -8 -1988 (Annexure XI to the writ petition), whereby he has reviewed his earlier order dated 21 -8 -1998 and recognised the committee of Management of which Sri Ram Suresh Singh Respondent No. 3 is the manager and in pursuance thereof has attested his signatures. It is against this order that the Petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondents and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the court. The B.S.A. does not have jurisdiction to review his earlier order, whereby a committee of Management of the college has been recognised by him except on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake and even in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake the order cannot be reviewed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned in whose favour earlier order was passed. This position has been settled by this Court and in this connection reference may be made to a case of Gauri Shanker Rai v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, 1984 UP LB EC 166, wherein the Division Bench has laid down that a District Inspector of Schools cannot review his order recognising a Committee of Management of the college except in the case of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake and even in such cases a reasonable opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the affected person. Instant case does not appear to be a case of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. That apart, it is quite clear that the B.S.A. has not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner before reviewing his earlier order by the impugned order. As mentioned hereinbefore, a letter was sent to the Petitioner fixing 20 -7 -1988 which was received after 20th July and as such there was no question for the Petitioner to appear on 20 -7 -1988. Petitioner was fully justified to request on 23 -7 -1988 for another date, which was not given by the B.S.A. The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) IN this connection it may also be mentioned that recalling or reviewing the earlier order is akin to and partakes of a quasi -judicial complexion and when passing such an order authority concerned not only should give a reasonable opportunity of being heard but should also record reasons in support of his conclusion. In S.N. Mukherji v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984, Supreme Court has laid down that: Keeping in view the expending horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. X X X X X X For the reasons aforesaid, it must be coucluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi -judicial function is required to record the reasons for its decision. In the present case the B.S.A. has merely recorded his conclusion but has not given any reasons in support thereof. The power to review or to recall an order is, as mentioned hereinbefore, analogous to quasi -judicial function and recording of reasons by the B.S.A. was essential, which has not been done.;