ORDER The petitioner is a registererd Class-II contractor. He has challenged the order of blacklisting as communicated to him by Memo No. 2417 dated 10.6.2006 (Annexure-7) by the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar (Rural Engineering Organization). The petitioner's submission, in short, is that the proceedings were unauthorisedly initiated and concluded in conflict with the Bihar Enlistment of Contractors Rules, 1996. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed and parties have been heard and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. Under the said Rules, Rule 4 (1) provides for registering officers and in case of Class-II contractors, the registering officer is Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Road Constructions who has to register in consultation with a minimum three Chief Engineers of the said Department. The issue raised in this case is that Rule 13 confers jurisdiction on authorities to blacklist a contractor. This Rule provides that it is the registering authority who alone is competent to take such an action. Petitioner submits that the proceedings were initiated on recommendation of the Collector of the district by the Secretary of the Department and not the Engineer-in-Chief who was the registering authority. Petitioner filed his show cause before the Secretary and then Secretary formed a Committee of himself sitting with one Chief Engineer who was apparently representative of three Chief Engineers and passed orders for blacklisting the petitioner which was then subsequently communicated as aforesaid. It is submitted that very initiation of proceedings was invalid. To the contrary, State has submitted that the post of Engineer-in-Chief was vacant and, as such, in view of Rule 3 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, the Secretary, who was the next highest authority, was competent to assume power and take action accordingly. It is the rival contentions that has to be decided. 4. Rule 3 of Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 reads as follows: "3. Relation of higher to lower authority.-A higher authority has all the powers of any lower authority and, further may, with or without appeal, modify or reverse any orders passed by lower authority, in a matter primarily with in the competence of the lower authority, unless, by any law, the orders of the lower authority are final." 5. In my opinion, the said Rule only recognizes certain powers of a higher authority. In my opinion, the said Rule only recognizes certain powers of a higher authority. It talks of appeals or other orders that can be passed. It specifically notices that unless the authority is restricted by any law making the order of the lower authority final the higher authority can exercise that power. In my view, this provision has no application to the present case. The Bihar Enlistment of Contractors Rules, 1996 are statutory Rules made by the Government. That provides and confers authority on a specified officer to do a specified job. It there is vacancy in the officer then surely another officer cannot automatically step in and start performing those works or duties for it is well established that even in such cases, an officer has to be notified by the State Government to fill up the post as a contingent matter. Admittedly, in this case, no such notification was ever issued and the post was allowed to continue to be vacant. It is well settled that when an authority has been conferred on a person with respect to his post then only a person who is legitimately holding that post can exercise the power. Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules and Rule 3, in particular, does not apply to such a contingency. If they were to apply then automatically wherever vacancies were caused, other officers would start performing the work without authority being conferred on them and it would lead to chaotic situation in administration. Here, the Secretary, admittedly, had no authority so far as petitioner was concerned. In my view, in absence of a notification authorizing any particular officer to exercise the powers in absence of the Engineer-in-Chief because of a vacancy, no other person could exercise that power much less a statutory power as envisaged under the Contractors' Enlistment Rules, 1996. In my view, on this short ground alone, the writ petition has to be allowed. 6 Apart from this, I would like to mention that if the Secretary considers himself to be competent to take up the proceedings then even the order cannot be sustained for, admittedly, it is he who did not alone pass the order. He had a Chief Engineer with him and it is the Committee that passed the order. Thus, it was not the person who initiated or before whom show cause was filed that ultimately passed the order. He had a Chief Engineer with him and it is the Committee that passed the order. Thus, it was not the person who initiated or before whom show cause was filed that ultimately passed the order. It was another body that passed the order which body is not recognized body as per the Rules aforesaid. 7. In that view of the matter, I am left with no option but to quash the order, as contained in Annexure-7, giving liberty to the authorities to take such action as they may be advised in accordance with law. 8. Before parting, I would like to notice one thing. An order blacklisting a contractor is a quasi-judicial order having- drastic effect of curtailing the business opportunity of a contractor for a limited period. Consequences being drastic, the order has to be a speaking order. A speaking order is an order which itself shows application of mind on all aspects of the matter. Such an application of mind must be apparent from the order itself. In the present case, if one refers the order, it is a more charge-sheet against the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner has not been noticed much less discussed in detail. All that is discussed is that the charges in detail against the petitioner and that the show cause of the petitioner has been found unsatisfactory. What was the defence of the petitioner and how it was found to be unsatisfactory or not acceptable is not there. It is well established that such an order is not a reasoned order. Reasons are the link between facts found and the decision taken. That gives out the reasoning process. Such orders are amenable to judicial review. If reasons are not supplied them the Court or authority exercising powers of judicial review would lack the very foundational facts to take a view in the matter, thus, effectively making the exercise of judicial review an exercise in futility. 9. This, the authorities would keep in mind. 10. With these observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. Annexure-7 is quashed.