Quasi-judicial authorities must record cogent reasons in orders to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Self-Help Group (Swa Sahayata Samooh), challenged orders dated 27.08.2024, 21-02-2025, and 11-11-2025, which removed them from the Mid-Day Meal (MDM) distribution work at Madhyamik School Biraurakhet and re-allotted it to Respondent No. 5.

Originally, Respondent No. 5 held the contract but was removed following complaints; however, pursuant to a prior High Court direction in WP No. 19419 of 2022, the CEO of Janpad Panchayat Prithvipur passed the impugned order on 27.08.2024 reinstating Respondent No. 5.

The petitioner contended that this order was non-speaking and lacked application of mind, a defect that persisted through two subsequent administrative appeals.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, was legally sustainable given the allegation that it was a non-speaking order.

2. Whether quasi-judicial and administrative authorities are mandatorily required to record reasons in support of their conclusions.

The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the "duty to speak" as evolved through administrative law.

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, which dictates that judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities must record clear, cogent, and succinct reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency, accountability, and to facilitate judicial review.

The rule establishes that "reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion" and their absence violates the principle of fairness.

The Court observed that the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Prithvipur, failed to record any findings or address the specific objections raised by the parties in the order dated 27.08.2024.

Applying the Kranti Associates doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the decision-making process lacked transparency and failed to demonstrate objective consideration of relevant factors, it was per se illegal.

The Court further noted that the subsequent orders by the Additional Collector and Commissioner were also unsustainable because they affirmed a fundamentally flawed, non-speaking original order without correcting the procedural lapse.

The Court remanded the matter to the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Prithvipur, with a direction to pass a fresh, speaking order after hearing all affected parties within 30 days. The Court ordered that, as the petitioner had been working under an interim stay since 04.12.2025, they shall be permitted to continue the MDM distribution work until the CEO takes a fresh decision.