ORDER This writ application is directed against the order of cancellation of Life membership of the petitioner from the Managing Committee of Enayetpur Rameshwarpur Siddiqua Asrafia Senior Madrasah by Memo no 954 dated November 27, 1989 issued by the Secretary West Bengal Madrasah Education Board and Memo no. 726 dated December 28, 1989 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) South 24-Parganas. The facts of the case, in its barest outline, are placed below: 2. The petitioner initially gave a loan of Rs. 23,064 80p to the Managing Committee of Enayetpur Rameshwarpur Siddiqua Asrafia Senior Madrasah (in short the said Madrasah hereafter) for construction of the Madrasah building. The Madrasah authorities by its resolution dated February 18,1983 recorded that they were unable to repay the said amount of loan and urged the petitioner to give the said amount of Rs.23,064.80p as donation to the said Madrasah. Accordingly, the amount was donated and the Madrasah authority on February 19, 1983 selected the petitioner as Life-member of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah. The Managing Committee empowered the Superintendent-cum-Headmaster of the said Madrasah to take proper steps for approval of Life-membership of the petitioner by the concerned authorities, by its resolution dated December 18, 1983. Pursuant to the said resolution, the Superintendent-cum-Head master filed an application before the District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas for approval of the life-membership of the petitioner. Initially this petitioner made a donation of Rs 500/- in favour of the said Madrasah and the name of the petitioner was recorded as donor member in the provisional voter list. Thereafter, election of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah was held and the following members were found to be elected to the new Managing Committee: 1. Hazi Md. Motior Rahaman Gazi Founder/uncontested 2. Gazi Md. Abul Kalam Donor - do 3. Md. Ahsan Ullah Person interested in Education 4 Md. Mosaffor Ahamed Mondal 5 Md. Abdur Rahaman Khan Guardian 6. Md. Ismail Gazi -do- 7. Md. Mahfuz Peada -do- 8. Md. Yunus Mondal -do- 9. Md. Moharam Ali -do- 3. Thereafter, the result of the aforesaid new ejection of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah was duly communicated to the Secretary, West Bengal Secondary Madrasah Board (in short the said Madrasah Board hereafter) by the Superintendent-cum-Headmaster of the said Madrasah. The Secretary of the Board duly approved the Life-membership of the petitioner as donor. Md. Moharam Ali -do- 3. Thereafter, the result of the aforesaid new ejection of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah was duly communicated to the Secretary, West Bengal Secondary Madrasah Board (in short the said Madrasah Board hereafter) by the Superintendent-cum-Headmaster of the said Madrasah. The Secretary of the Board duly approved the Life-membership of the petitioner as donor. The additional District Inspector of the Schools (SE), Diamond Harbour Sub-Division, 24-Parganas (S) by his order dated November 2, 1985 made the following: "Discussed with the Superintendent about the approval of the provisional voter Lists as submitted by the Superintendent of Madrasah. The provisional voter List of 122, Guardian and Life membership of Gazi Mohammad Abul Kalam, son of Late Golam Rob Gazi, Vill. Rameshwarpur, Post Office Enayetpur, P.S. Kulpi, Dist. South 24-Parganas is herewith annexed." 4. The Secretary, West Bengal Madrasah Education Board by an order dated September 4, 1986 addressed to Enayetpur Rameshwarpur S.A. Sr. Madrasah vide memo no. ALMC/533/1 approved the life-membership of the petitioner in the Managing Committee of the membership of the petitioner in the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah for reconstitution on and from 5.1.86 which reads thus: (Annexure "F" to the petition) "The constitution/re-constitution of Managing Committee consisting of the members mentioned below of Enayetpur Rameshwarpur S.A Sr. Madrasah, P.O. Enayetpur, Dist. 24-Parganas (S) is hereby approved for 3 (three) years with effect from 5.1.86. 1. President Md. Eunus Ali Mondal. Guardian member 2. Vice-President Md. Fazlur Rahaman Khan. -do- 3. Secretary Md. Abdul Quasem Halder, Supdt. Ex-Officio Md. Mahfuz Monayem Gazi, Panchayet Member Gazi Md. Abul Kalam, Life Member Md. Joynal Abedin Gayan, Guardian Member Md. Eyakub Ali Molla -do- Md. Suffiullah Sardar T.R. Hohassin Ali Mondal T.R. Md. Abdul Momin T.R. Md. Sekender Ali Jamadar Non- T R. S.I. of Schools (Pry) Circle Kulpi-l, Departmental nominee. Sd. Secretary West Bengal Madrasah Education Board." For re constitution of the Managing Committer, the election of the Guardian category was held on November 6,1988 and some of the respondents were elected from teacher representative category some were from Guardian category, some were elected from non-teaching staff and the petitioner was elected as Life-member of the said Managing Committee of Madrasah, The Headmaster-cum-Superintendent of the said Madrasah presented an application before the authorities for placement of the Government and the Panchayat nominee. Accordingly, Mdt. Accordingly, Mdt. Monayam Gazi was placed as panchayat nominee in the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah. When the election of the Guardian category, teacher and non-teacher and non-teaching staff representatives and placement of the different nominees was over, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E), 24-Parganas (South) by letter) no, 548 dated May 9, 1989 informed the respondent no.8 Superintendent-cum- Headmaster that the school authorities would complete the formation of Managing Committee in the manner following : "The Headmaster Enayetpur Rameshwarpur Senior Madrasah, P.O. Enayetpur, Dist. South 24 Parganas has report that Guardian election for re-constitution has completed on 6.11.88. Prayed for placement of Department nominee Vide no nil dated 6.6.88 As per WBBSE. Circular no. a/me/386 dated 7.7.81 and subsequent amendment, the S I/S Kulpi Circle, P.O Kulpi, South 24-Parganas is placed Departmental nominee on the Managing Committee of Enayetpur Rameshwarpur Sr. Madrasah. The School will complete on the formation of Managing Committee by way of election of Office bearers within fifteen days and submit (M.C.) form the quadruplicate to the Asstt. Inspector of Schools (SE) Diamond Harbour Sub-division. Immediate after Office bearers election. ... Among the Founder Shri .....:...... None. represent Managing Committee for this form. Life Member......Gazi Md. Abul Kalam" 5. The election of the Office Bearers of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah was not held and an application on behalf of the petitioner was moved before this Court on June 12, 1986 when Mr. Suhas Chandra Sen, J. passed directions upon the petitioner to serve copy of the application upon respondents. All the respondents were duly served the copy of the said application. The said matter appeared on November 6, 1989 when this Court in presence of parties passed the order in the manner following: "Adjourned this matter up to Monday and no appointment be made till Monday:' 6 Again the matter appeared for hearing before this Court on December 18, 1989 when the Court, after_ considering the case of-the petitioner and examining the Affidavit-in-Opposition disposed of the writ application with direction to the Superintendent-cum-Headmaster to hold the election of the Office bearers of the Managing Committee in presence of the Sub-Inspector of Schools (SE) and an interim order was also passed restraining the respondents from appointing any person till the election of the Office bearers of the Madrasah. Further direction was made that the respondents would hand over the charge to the newly elected body. Accordingly, the Civil Order no. 10850(W) of 1989 was disposed of. The respondents in their A/O never raised the plea that the life-membership of the petitioner stands cancelled. The Superintendent-cum-Headmaster of the said Madrasah informed the petitioner that the life-membership was cancelled by the Secretary of the said Madrasah Board by its memo no. 594 dated November 27, 1989 and also by the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) 24-Parganas (S) vide memo no. 726 dated December 28, 1989. But the said memo was neither sent to the petitioner nor communicated the same to the petitioner. In the background and facts of the case, Mr. Arun Prokas Sircar, the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner claimed and contended in the manner following: "Life-membership of the petitioner as donor of Rs. 23,064 80p. was accepted by resolution dated December 18, 1983 as will appear from Annexure "A" Due communication of the said resolution was duly transmitted by respondent no.8 informing the District Inspector of Schools, South 24-Parganas of the said resolution. Mr. Sircar made a special stress on the contents of Annexure "D" to the petition' which inter alia showed that the petitioner was accepted as donor and the same was duly approved. Further reference was made by Mr. Sircar to annexure "E" as indicated above showed the approval of life-membership of the petitioner was effected. Mr. Sircar further pin-pointed the reference contained in Annexures "F" and "C" in support of his contention that the petitioner was duly approved the Life-membership. Thereafter, Mr. Shear seriously assailed impugned order canceling the Life-membership without notice and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of having his say in the matter After referring basic aspects Mr. Sircar took pains in pin-pointing that Susanta Chatterjee, J. by His order passed on December 18, 1989 to the effect that the election be held but the concerned authorities passed the order of cancellation on December 28, 1989. 7. In those circumstances, it is claimed and contended that life-membership of the petitioner having been approved by the concerned authorities the same is not liable to be cancelled without giving a notice of hearing to the petitioner before canceling his life-membership by the Secretary of the Madrasah Board. 7. In those circumstances, it is claimed and contended that life-membership of the petitioner having been approved by the concerned authorities the same is not liable to be cancelled without giving a notice of hearing to the petitioner before canceling his life-membership by the Secretary of the Madrasah Board. The respondents never raised the plea of cancellation of Life-membership of the petitioner in C.O. No. 10850 (W) of 1989 The authorities concerned adversely affected the right of the petitioner to exercise voting in the Office bearers election held on January 14, 1990, that the petitioner should be treated as a Life member and the concerned respondents without indicating the grounds or reasons for cancellation of his Life membership cannot pass such order of cancellation which has the effect of cancellation of Life-membership of the petitioner. Mr. Aloke Ghosh appeared on behalf of the respondents nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Mr. Ghosh seriously joined all the issues as aforesaid. Mr. Ghosh referred to paragraph 4(b) of the Affidavit-in-opposition which inter alia states as follows: "I say that the District Inspector of schools (SE) south 24-parganas by his memo no. 726 dated December 28, 1989 informed me as regards the life membership of the writ petitioner wherefrom it will appear that it reveals from the audit report that the amount of loan given by the writ petitioner had nor gone through in the books of account of the said Madrasah and the said loan of the writ petitioner had not been converted into donation by any resolution of managing Committee of the said Madrasah. 8. Mr. Ghosh further claimed that the enquiry report reveals serious irregularities. While adopting the said resolution, the correct picture as regards expenditure is not property reflected. The resolution of the Managing Committee shows an expenditure of Rs. 1,87.238 29P against the construction of the building under the heads as mentioned herein whereas the audit report indicates that there is non-expenditure of Rs. 48.014.13p received from the teaching and non-teaching staff and there is no resolution for raising loan from the Secretary. Further the amount of loan never came to the School account. The claim of the petitioner that he donated Rs. 23.064.80P does not appear to be correct. The Secretary of the said. 48.014.13p received from the teaching and non-teaching staff and there is no resolution for raising loan from the Secretary. Further the amount of loan never came to the School account. The claim of the petitioner that he donated Rs. 23.064.80P does not appear to be correct. The Secretary of the said. Madrasah in his representation dated August 14.1989 addressed to the District Inspector of School, South 24-Parganas recorded that the petitioner did not pay the amount as required for being a life-member of the said Madrasah. It was further claimed that the Supdt.-Cum-Headmaster was compelled under pressure of the petitioner who happened to be the Secretary of the material time to sign certain documents and vouchers. It was also contended by Mr. Ghosh that donor could be a member of the Managing C0mmittee. It was further reiterated on behalf of the respondents that Asstt, Inspector of School, before making an enquiry on August 23.1989 requested all the members of the Managing Committee including the petitioner to be present at the time of the said enquiry. Accordingly, notices were served, the petitioner was present and produced certain papers. After due consideration of the entire aspects of the matter the life-membership of the petitioner was cancelled. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the manipulation, the details that were effected and placed in paragraph 4 its subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and also paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. After referring and relying on the said paragraphs, Mr. Ghosh claimed that the petitioner cannot challenge the actions of the Respondent in canceling his life-membership and the petitioner was already given an opportunity of hearing as he was present at the enquiry held by the concerned authorities. Mr. Arun Prokas Sircar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in reply claimed and contended that the petitioner was not given a copy of the enquiry nor he was served any notice along with the copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, the order of cancellation is undoubtedly violative of the principles of natural justice and the same militates against the concept of fairness, The order of cancellation was passed on the basis of the enquiry report, copy whereof was never served upon the petitioner. Mr. Sircar also claimed that the order of cancellation without recording reasons cannot be sustained. 9. Let us now exmine the rival contentions of Learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Sircar also claimed that the order of cancellation without recording reasons cannot be sustained. 9. Let us now exmine the rival contentions of Learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Sircar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that before cancellation of the life membership of petitioner (i) the petitioner was not served with any notice, (ii) the petitioner had no Opportunity to know the contents of the enquiry report nor the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner; (iii) the respondents did not refer to the enquiry report or the cancellation of the Life-membership of the petitioner in the affidavit-in-opposition in, CO 10850 (W) of 1989 ; (iv) copy of the application made by Mr. Eunus Ali Mondal and others was not forwarded to the petitioner. Mr. Sircar also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of AK. Kraipak v. Union of India reported in 1969(2) SSC 272, Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar reported in (1969) SCC 868. The order impugned in the writ application is passed without assigning any reason therefore. The concerned authorities, in my view, never recorded the reasons for their decision irrespective of whether the decision is a subject of appeal, revision and Judicial review, and the reasons should have been recorded clearly and in explicit manner. The plea taken by Mr. Ghosh as recorded above, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Respondent authorites did not supply copy of the enquiry report and the order was founded upon on the basis of allegation contained in the application of Md. Eunus Ali Mandai & others. Copy of the application made by Md. Eunus Ali Mandal & others which is the basis of enquiry was never forwarded to the petitioner. Non-supply of the said application precluded the petitioner from dealing with allegations made in the said application as also to challenge the election report. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v State of U. P. held in the manner following; "The practice of the, executive authority dismissing appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v State of U. P. held in the manner following; "The practice of the, executive authority dismissing appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. Recording reasons in support of a decision on disputed claim by quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to Jaw and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater for without recorded reasons, the appellate I authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law, was correctly applied and the decision was just." The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India inter alia held: "The cone pt of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the part it was thought that it included just two rules, namely: (i) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex propria causa and (ii no decision shall be given against a party without (affording him a reasonable hearing (audialieram partem) Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice." 10 For the sake of arguments if the basic objections taken by Mr Ghosh are accepted, even then the inescapable conclusion that may emerge is that the court cannot but hold the view as expressed by prof. H.W.R. Wade to the following effect: Natural justice may provide the best rubric for it since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice (Wade, Administrative Law, 6th Edn, p. 548). At the same time, the Court cannot ignore the principles of natural justice namely, no person could be judged without hearing. H.W.R. Wade to the following effect: Natural justice may provide the best rubric for it since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice (Wade, Administrative Law, 6th Edn, p. 548). At the same time, the Court cannot ignore the principles of natural justice namely, no person could be judged without hearing. Besides, there might be certain exceptions in a given situation which seeks to ensure fairness, the process of decision making can be recorded as part of principles of natural justice. If rule of audi alteram partem is not applicable in a given case even then reasonableness and fair play in action which emanates from the doctrine of natural justice must be observed. Failure on the part of the concerned respondents, particularly respondent no. 4 to act fairly and reasonably calls for interference with the order of canceling the life-membership of the petitioner. 11. The relevant portion of paragraph 4(b) of the A/O inter alia states that on the basis of an application made by Md. Yunus Ali Mandal and others duly endorsed by Savapati of Local Panchayet Samity and the Pradhans of Gram Panchayets, an enquiry was made in the said Madrasah on August 29, 1989 by the Asstt. Inspector of Schools, South 24-Paragans under instruction by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas. The said copy of the application was never furnished to the petitioner nor petitioner was told that the order canceling the life-membership was passed on the basis of application made by Md. Eunus Ali Mandal and others which constitutes a fundamental ground of the order of cancellation of life-membership of the petitioner. The petitioners' right to remain life member of the said Madrasah cannot be taken away by an ex parte decision and by such arbitray action. The action of the respondents concerned, in my view, suffers from infection of arbitrariness, procedural Impropriety and complete absence of fairness. It is well settled that the concept of the fairness is the soul of rules of natural justice. The District Inspector of Schools (South 24-Paragans) acted in an arbitrary manner and took the decision without taking into injustice by reason of denial of rules of natural justice. In my view, the order canceling the life-membership of the petitioner was passed in grevious breach of audi alteram partem principles. The District Inspector of Schools (South 24-Paragans) acted in an arbitrary manner and took the decision without taking into injustice by reason of denial of rules of natural justice. In my view, the order canceling the life-membership of the petitioner was passed in grevious breach of audi alteram partem principles. The basis underlying the rules of natural justice are to prevent miscarriage of justice and ensure fairplay in action. Observance of the rules of natural justice excludes chances of arbitrariness and secures degree of fairness in the process of decision making. Taking into view the vast expanding firmament of the principles of natural justice, I am of the opinion, the requirement 10 assign reasons cannot but be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. This Court is not oblivious of the principles that the doctrine of natural justice is not embodied rules. The extent of its' application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder exercise of power has been conferred on the administrative authority. Regarding exercise of power by an administrative authority, the court may feel that it would be in a given situation proper for the authority to record the reasons in support of the order passed by the authority. It is not such a case as is presented before this Court that the rules of Natural Justice stand excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. 12. After taking into overall view of the matter and the pros-and-cons of the entire case, I cannot but hold the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas as also by the Secretary. the said Madrasah Board canceling the life-membership of the petitioner which has not been served upon the petitioner as also the order of the Secretary of the said Madrasah incorporating the decision of the District Inspector of Schools to treat the life-membership as cancelled as being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction Accordingly, the application succeeds. This order shall not prevent the respondents District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas and also the Secretary of the Madrasah Board from taking any steps or proceeding with the matter de novo. This order shall not prevent the respondents District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas and also the Secretary of the Madrasah Board from taking any steps or proceeding with the matter de novo. In the event, such proceeding is initiated for cancellation of the life-membership of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing and also adducing evidence or further evidences in support of his claim that he is life-member of the said Madrasah and also on the basis of the payment of Rs. 23.064 80p made by him and thereafter, the concerned authorities shall pass a reasoned order on merits. No order as to costs. Application allowed; liberty given to proceed afresh.