- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an order passed by the respondents dated 12th March, 2008 is under challenge and by the impugned order, an application, preferred by the present petitioner for getting permanent permit under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that Annexure-3 is thoroughly a non-speaking order and the whole application of the present petitioner has been brushed aside by using only one word "dismissed". The said order must be dismissed with an exemplary cost by this Court as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer, who has passed the order, is so arbitrary that he has not properly appreciated that the dismissal order is an appellable order under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unless, the reasons are given, nothing can be appreciated by the appellate authority under the Act, 1988. Whenever any order is an appellable order, a reason order must be passed. Simple proposition of law is not known to the officer, who has passed the order and, therefore, let the impugned order may be quashed with cost and the matter may be remanded to the respondents for taking a fresh decision, within stipulated time.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no objection if the matter is remanded for a fresh decision upon an application of the petitioner under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the said application will be decided by the competent authority within two weeks. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondents dated 12th March, 2008 at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons :- (i) Looking to the impugned order, it appears that no reasons have been assigned. Only one reason assigned is "dismissed" . This is not a method in which an order should be passed by the respondent authorities. This is thoroughly a non-application of mind and it reveals absolute arbitrariness, which leads to inequality. By this type of attitude, authority may allow the application whereas in rest of the cases, he may dismiss by one word like the present impugned order. The impugned order is an appellable order under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, also reasons ought to have been assigned by the concerned respondent authorities. Reasons are the soul of the order. Unless, the reasons are given, higher authorities cannot appreciate why the application was allowed or dismissed. This is a bare minimum requirement, which, the respondent authorities ought to have kept in mind. Not to assign any reasons and the application is dismissed, is a non- application of mind and arbitrariness. I therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the respondents dated 12th March, 2008 at Annexure- 3 to the memo of petition. (ii) I hereby also direct the concerned respondent authorities to decide afresh, the application of the petitioner and speaking order shall be passed under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. (iii) This petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The amount of cost will be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. The petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.;