1. The parties are at loggerheads on the validity, legality and propriety of order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/10) and appellate order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure-P/16).

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts between the parties are that respondents issued a show cause notice dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure-P/5) alongwith an inquiry report. It was alleged that petitioner either supplied no material or less material to the stakeholders. In turn, the petitioner filed his reply [Annexure-P/8 & P/9 (by dealer)] and contended that the agriculturists/stakeholders have received the entire material. Alongwith this reply, affidavits of certain agriculturists were filed to show that requisite material was actually supplied to them. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of list of 33 agriculturists, affidavits of 22 were filed alongwith the reply. The same are again filed in the present petition. The Directorate by order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/10), opined that petitioner’s reply is not acceptable and, therefore, directed for blacklisting of petitioner with further observation that this order, WP-14161-2017 Annexure-P/10, can be called in question by preferring the appeal. In turn, the petitioner preferred a detailed appeal (Page No.96) which was rejected by order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure-P/16).

3. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no discussion about the reply of the petitioner. The petitioner’s reply has been disbelieved for no valid reason by order dated 12.05.2017. The appellate order (Annexure-P/16) suffers from similar infirmity because it does not deal with the grounds raised in the appeal memo.

4. Per-contra, Mr. Naveen Dubey, learned G.A. opposed the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He placed heavy reliance on the order dated 22.02.2018, passed in W.P. No.13537/2017 [M/s. Sweta Industiries vs. The State of M.P] and contend that present matter is similar to the said case and, therefore, this petition may also be dismissed. Mr. Dubey supported the impugned orders (Annexure-P/10 & P/16).

5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. This is trite law that blacklisting of an organization is a serious matter and, therefore, such a decision must be taken in accordance with law. In the present case, the core issue is whether the decision making process adopted by the respondents which resulted into issuance of order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/10) is in accordance with law. This is also required to be seen whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal.

8. As noticed, the petitioner and dealer filed their reply and took a categorical stand that allegation of no supply or less supply of material is factually incorrect. The affidavits of agriculturists show that the material was indeed supplied to them. In the impugned order dated 12.05.2017, the Directorate although endorsed the fact that petitioner did file the said reply alongwith affidavits and photographs of the agriculturists, but did not assign any reason as to why the reply filed by the petitioner and affidavits were not trustworthy. The Directorate recorded the conclusion that 'the report of the Committee constituted by the Collector shows that either no material was supplied nor less material was supplied and, therefore, petitioner’s reply is not accepted'. Interestingly, the show cause notice dated 31.02.2016 (Annexure-P/5) was issued alongwith the said inquiry report. The petitioner refuted the same by way of filing reply which was pregnant with affidavits of agriculturists. If respondents have already decided to act on the inquiry report prepared pursuant to the directions of the Collector, there was no use of issuing the show cause notice (Annexure-P/5). Once it is issued and reply is obtained, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider the defence taken in the reply supported by affidavits. In the impugned order dated 12.05.2017, no reasons are assigned by the Directorate as to why petitioner’s defence was not found trustworthy. Reasons are held to be heart beats of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders in the case reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496, (M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others). The relevant portion of said judgment reads as under:

'51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

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 life blood 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 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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 Harward Law Review 731- 737).

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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of 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. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".'

9. If impugned order dated 12.05.2017 is tested on the anvil of ratio decidendi of Kranti Associates (supra), it cannot sustain judicial scrutiny because it does not contain any reason for discarding the reply of the petitioner. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that appellate order (Annexure-P/16) suffers from similar infirmity. In the entire appellate order, there is no analysis as to why grounds raised in the appeal memo did not suit the appellate authority. Such an order cannot be countenanced by this Court.

10. So far as order passed in M/s. Sweta Industries (supra) is concerned, it is apposite to quote the relevant portion of the said order which contains the reason for not entertaining the said petition.

'In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner has not filed a detailed reply or documents in response to show cause notice. In fact, reply filed by the petitioner was skeleton reply and bereft of merits to the show cause notice. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot complain either that of non-observance of principles of natural justice or that of non-application of mind by the authority taking the decision to blacklist. That apart, even in his appeal, petitioner has not tried to explain with documentary evidence his contention that all drip/sprinklers were supplied to all farmers and the allegation is unfounded.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court sees no reason to interfere either with the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner or with the appellate order. More-so, as pointed out by the appellate authority, the petitioner committed second default in the matter of supply of drip/sprinkler and despite warning, he did not mend his ways. The fact of non-supply or short supply by the dealer/petitione

r is writ large as evident from the document Annexure-P/5 where the petitioner himself has discontinued or cancelled the dealership of Saxena Tractor Parts for such lapses. In the result, writ petition sans merit is dismissed.' [Emphasis Supplied] 11. A plain reading of these paras make it clear that in the said case, petitioner did not file any detailed reply or documents in response to the show cause notice. For this reason, interference was declined in the said case. The said case is of no help to the State. In the present case, petitioner has filed reply which was pregnant with various affidavits. 12. In view of aforesaid analysis, the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/10) and appellate order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure-P/16) are set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Directorate to take a fresh decision in accordance with law on the reply filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.