ORDER 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.6.2013 whereby his contract for mid-day meal is cancelled. The singular ground of attack is that this order entails civil consequences and could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the order does not contain reasons and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth his case. 2. The prayer is opposed by the other side. 3. Shri Maheshwari submits that although detailed reasons are not given in the impugned order, such reasons are given in the return. He supported the order impugned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is apt to quote the judgments of Supreme Court where the necessity to follow the principles of natural justice were emphasized. 6. In (1990) 2 SCC 746 (Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintala and Others), the apex Court held as under:- “Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price - a small price indeed has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law.” “........even God himself did not pass [a] sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam (says God), where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?....” In Lloyd v. McMahon17 (AC pp.702 H-703 B), it was held as under:- “My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. In particular, it is well established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the Courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness.” In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [ (1978)1 SCC 405 ], Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for himself, Beg, C.J. And Bhagwati, J. highlighted the importance of the rule of hearing in the following words : “43.Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone of healthy Government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilyas Arthashastrathe rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system. 47. The Court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent permissible in a given case. It must not be forgotten that natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. The audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. The core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order is passed without following the principles of natural justice. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is an adverse order and entails civil consequences for the petitioner. Accordingly, this order could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The order suffers from another illegality because it does not contain any specific reason. It is only mentioned that on inspection it was found that petitioner is not providing mid day meal properly. However, the nature of deficiencies and reasons for such conclusion are not mentioned. The reasons are heart beats of conclusions. 8. The order suffers from another illegality because it does not contain any specific reason. It is only mentioned that on inspection it was found that petitioner is not providing mid day meal properly. However, the nature of deficiencies and reasons for such conclusion are not mentioned. The reasons are heart beats of conclusions. 8. The apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, emphasized not to assign reasons in the following words :- “(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 lifeblood 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 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. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial Authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then 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. (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. (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. Thus, this order needs to be interfered with because it is not pregnant with necessary details and reasons. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.