JUDGMENT 1. - In the above bunch of writ petitions, common question is involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. However, facts are taken into consideration from the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9761/2006 for adjudicating the matter. 2. The petitioner is challenging order Annex. 9 dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the State Pollution Control Board, having regard to non-compliance of the provisions of the Air Act and consequent pollution of air being caused, has revoked the consent for operation of the crushers and passed order for closure with the following directions : "You are directed to close down your industrial plant immediately. District Collector, Bharatpur to ensure closure of the said industry. Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitrant Nigam Limited, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur shall disconnect the electricity supply to the said industry immediately and compliance report should be submitted to the State Board. Regional Officer, Regional Office, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Alwar is directed to seal the Diesel Generator Sets if any and report that the direction as above have been complied." 3. It is further order that if non-compliance of the above directions will be made, then, it is punishable under Section 37(1) of the Air Act with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition is that after issuance of notice to the petitioner under Section 31-A by the Pollution Control Board, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner and vide Annex.-8 a detailed reply was filed and grounds were raised that petitioner is not committing any illegality or contravention of the Air Act, 1981 therefore, notice given under Section 31-A of the Act may be revoked and proceedings may be dropped against the petitioner. In the reply, a prayer was also made for personal hearing through counsel; but, while passing the impugned order none of the grounds raised in the reply was considered by the State Pollution Control Board and, straight away, impugned order dated 14.7.2009 has been passed, therefore, the order is against the principles of natural justice, so also, passed without application of mind. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the Constitution Bench, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Authority exercising quasi judicial function must record reasons for its decisions irrespective of whether the decision is subject to judicial review, revision or appeal. Further, it is held that reasons should be clear and explicit though may not be elaborate because this is one of the embodied rules of the principles of natural justice, therefore, in view of the fact that none of the grounds taken in the reply were considered by the Board and, straight away, order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing, the same may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board vehemently argued that although in the order impugned grounds taken by the petitioner in its reply are not incorporated or discussed but it is one the file, therefore, it is observed in para 8 that industry has failed to submit satisfactory reply. Therefore, it was not felt necessary for the Member Secretary of the Board to incorporate those reasons which are on file. Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board further argued that personal hearing is also not necessary because the site was inspected by the Committee constituted by the District Collector, Bharatpur and, during the course of inspection, certain deficiencies/illegalities were found. In this view of the matter, there is no ground for interference in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board, the order impugned is in consonance with the provisions of law. The answering respondent has issued the impugned order in keeping with the principles of natural justice and after affording sufficient opportunity, therefore, direction issued for closure is in consonance with the provisions of law and as such this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The answering respondent has issued the impugned order in keeping with the principles of natural justice and after affording sufficient opportunity, therefore, direction issued for closure is in consonance with the provisions of law and as such this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is also filed in this case by applicant Man Mandir Seva Sansthan through Nilamber Das to oppose the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant made a prayer that applicant may be impleaded as party respondent in this matter and the writ petition may be dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the application. 8. I have considered the rival submission made by the respective parties to the extent of validity of the order impugned on the ground that whether the order has been passed after following the principles of natural justice or not. 9. Upon perusal of the notice Annex.-7 and impugned order Annex.-9 it reveals that vide Annex.-7 the petitioner was asked to give reply within 15 days else it was ordered that action be taken for closure and, in pursuance of the said notice Annex.-7 dated 2.1.2009, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner vide Annex.-8, but, on perusal of Annex.-9 which is a penal order, it seems that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner was even considered and in a very casual manner it is stated that reply is not satisfactory. In my opinion, as per judgment of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra), it was obligatory duty of the authority who has passed order to consider the ground for the purpose of adjudicating upon the allegations levelled against the petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Air Act, 1981 and reasons were to be recorded for not accepting the reply. 10. On perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that the impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner. Of course, the report of the Inspection Committee was relevant for the purpose of deciding the question; but, at the same time, the authority who has passed the order impugned was under obligation to consider the grounds taken by the petitioner in its reply and was under legal obligation to give reasons for not accepting the plea taken in the reply to the notice. Mere saying that reply has been considered and it does not fulfill the requirement of Law. It is settled principle of law that before passing any penal order against citizens or any firm, at least the principles of natural justice must be adhered to and while doing so, reasons, must be recorded for the necessity of taking penal action. In this view of the Matter, order impugned deserves to be quashed because the order has been passed without considering the grounds of reply sand order is against the adjudication made by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee's case, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed vide paras 35, 361 and 40 of the said judgment as follows : "35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions, and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added 63 that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. 11. 40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. 11. With regard to application filed by the applicant for impleading as party, in my opinion, although applicant has raised very serious question that large number of persons are operating illegal mines without any licence in the Braj region of Bharatpur district and for last many years the residents of the area are raising voice and agitating for protection and preservation of good environment of Braj region and, for the said purpose, several dharna, demonstrations, conferences and meetings had been organised because religious sentiments of the citizens of the whole of the country and millions of devotees for protection of the area are in question. It is true that applicant has raised certain important question, but, here, in this case, this Court is adjudicating the action of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, whereby, the Pollution Control Board has passed order for closure on the ground that petitioner has violated the provisions of the Air Act, 1981, therefore, the applicant is not necessary party. But the applicant has raised very important issue for which he may raise voice for redressal of grievance of the public at large before the higher authorities of the State, and, it is expected of the State authorities that in the event of filling any representation for the said purpose before the Chief Secretary or Secretary Mines, both the authorities will take appropriate steps for redressal of the grievance of the people of the area and will ensure that no person shall operate illegal mining work without any licence of shall not violate the provisions of law. It is also expected from the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan and Principal Secretary, Mining Department that they will ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Mining Act and Rules made thereunder and will not allow any person to operate illegal mining. With aforesaid observation, the application of the applicant for impleadraent as party is disposed of. 12. With aforesaid observation, the application of the applicant for impleadraent as party is disposed of. 12. While following the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee's case (supra), all these writ petitions are hereby allowed and orders impugned in these writ petitions passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for closure are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is hereby remitted to the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for deciding the same afresh and all the petitioners are directed to appear before the Pollution Control Board on 22.12.2009 and the State Pollution Control Board is directed to decide the matter after considering the grounds taken in the reply and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, by speaking order. 13. It is made clear that hearing may be permitted through counsel and the matter shall be decided within 15 days from the date of hearing. No adjournment shall be granted and whatever argument/submission is to be made may be made on the above fixed date. It is also made clear that if nobody appears for the petitioners, then, the Board shall proceed ex parte and decide the matter. 14. The stay orders passed in the writ petitions shall remain in force upon the condition that petitioners shall not execute the work of those mine- holders who are not in possession of valid licence in their favour and operating illegal mining work. *******