JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J, - M/s Umesh Cycle and Rickshaw Stores, Baripada is a registered authorized dealer of Atlas and Hero cycles and selling its products with genuine fittings. As a proprietorship firm, it also used to supply bicycles to various Government and non-Government organizations as per their requirement. Odisha Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board (for short the “Board”) by its letter dated 23.11.2016 formed a standard procedure for processing reimbursement of claims at district level pertaining to assistance for purchase of working tools, safety equipments and bicycles to the beneficiaries, who are registered under the said Board. As per the decision, there would be an empanelment of shops/vendors at the district level for supplying bicycles, for which an Expression of Interest (EoI) was to be invited from the district level agencies/shops/vendors. As per the standard criteria, a vendor, in order to be empanelled, should be a registered dealer and must have district presence. The object behind such decision was that if there would be any defect in fitting or repair problem, the local dealer can immediately rectify the same. 2. The Board, in terms of such guidelines, invited sealed proposals on 20.09.2017 in the prescribed formant from the registered dealers having valid TIN number in the district of Mayurbhanj, for purchase of bicycles/working tools/safety equipments with a view to extending the assistance to its registered construction workers. Pursuant to the said proposal, the petitioner, being a registered owner dealing with bicycles and having valid TIN number, submitted its quotation in time by mentioning its TIN and PAN numbers and enclosing the required documents including VAT clearance certificate. 3. In pursuance of such quotations submitted by the petitioner and others, a final report of eligible dealers was prepared by the authority, for supply of bicycles, safety equipments and other bicycle tools. As per the said final report, the petitioner was found to have complied with all criteria, and accordingly a final list of eligible dealers/firms /establishment for purchase of bicycles, safety equipments and working tools was published, where the name of the petitioner was found placed at serial no.1. When the process was going on, all on a sudden the District Labour Officer, without cancellation of earlier notice, invited fresh quotations vide notice dated 27.11.2017 from the authorized manufacturers, which is contrary to the guidelines/procedure formulated on 23.11.2016 in Annexure-1, hence this application. 4. Mr. When the process was going on, all on a sudden the District Labour Officer, without cancellation of earlier notice, invited fresh quotations vide notice dated 27.11.2017 from the authorized manufacturers, which is contrary to the guidelines/procedure formulated on 23.11.2016 in Annexure-1, hence this application. 4. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the notice issued on 20.09.2017 in Annexure-2 inviting applications in prescribed format from registered dealers having valid TIN number and dealing with the sale of bicycles/working tools/safety equipments in the district of Mayurbhanj in conformity with the guidelines issued on 23.11.2016, when the process was on and the petitioner was found successful, having satisfied all the requirements, and its name was found placed at serial no.1 in the final list prepared by the authority, without cancelling the said notice by assigning reasons, the subsequent notification issued on 27.11.2017 in Annexure-5 inviting quotations for supply of bicycles for the beneficiaries under the Board for the district of Mayurbhanj from the authorized manufacturers having experience for supply of ISI mark bicycles with valid GST/VAT clearance is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the notice issued on 27.11.2017 is defective and contrary to the guidelines and against the spirit of object of the policy decision of the authority concerned. It is further contended that the manufacturers cannot provide service directly to the beneficiaries, like cycle repair, fittings and other issues, which can be taken up only through local dealers. Therefore, the petitioner being a registered dealer in the district of Mayurbhanj and its name, having found placed at serial no.1 of the final list, as an eligible dealer, invitation of fresh quotations by notice dated 27.11.2017, without cancelling the earlier notice dated 20.09.2017, cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State opposite parties submits that in order to supply quality and timely delivery of huge number of bicycles to the beneficiaries in a limited period the fresh EoI from the interested manufacturers of bicycles was invited, vide notice dated 27.11.2017, in the district level for empanelment, which was for the benefit of the real beneficiaries, the construction workers. It is further contended that no standard process for empanelment of shops/vendors have been communicated in the letter dated 23.11.2016, only administrative guidelines for empanelment of shops/vendors and disbursement of claim at district level was issued, vide letter dated 23.11.2016, therefore no right stated to have been accrued in favour of the petitioner. He accordingly contended that the action taken by the authority concerned is justified and warrants no interference by this Court in this proceeding. 6. We have heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State opposite parties, and perused the records. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. The facts delineated above are not disputed. The guidelines issued on 23.11.2016 in Annexure-1 clearly stipulate that there shall be district level empanelment of shops/vendors at district level supplying bicycles, safety equipments (shops dealing with business of gloves, safety shoes and helmet) and working tools (hardware shops etc.). The EoI shall be prepared and floated by the district for empanelment of agency/shops/vendors. Further, the district can add further clauses to the same as per its requirement. The standard criteria for vendors to be empanelled shall be - a) It must have district presence. b) Should be a registered dealer having valid TIN number under OVAT Act. c) Should have up to date VAT clearance certificate. d) Must have filed return under VAT, CST and ET Act till last Tax period. 8. The guidelines stipulate about shops/vendors at district level with an object that they are the authorized dealers of manufacturer, if any discrepancy found in service and fitting of cycles they can immediately provide service to the beneficiaries, as no reputed manufacturer is available in the local district. The manufacturer cannot provide service directly to the beneficiaries like cycle repair, fitting and other issues and it can be only through local dealers and the petitioner being a registered dealer in the district level, it can directly caters the needs of the beneficiaries. The manufacturer cannot provide service directly to the beneficiaries like cycle repair, fitting and other issues and it can be only through local dealers and the petitioner being a registered dealer in the district level, it can directly caters the needs of the beneficiaries. Therefore, the petitioner, having satisfied the guidelines prescribed by the Board, pursuant to invitation of sealed proposals in prescribed format from the registered dealers having valid TIN number and dealing with sales of bicycles/working tool/safety equipments in the district of Mayurbhannj vide letter dated 20.09.2017 in Annexure-2, submitted its application and the competent authority, having found the same in order and satisfied the requirements of the guidelines as well as the sale proposal invited on 20.09.2017 is fulfilled, prepared a final list of eligible dealers where the name of the petitioner found placed at serial no.1. Therefore, the petitioner has got legitimate expectation to be placed with necessary orders for supply of bicycles to the beneficiaries under the Board in respect of the district of Mayurbhanj. But all on a sudden, without cancelling the selection made pursuant to the notice dated 20.09.2017 in Annexure-2, a fresh notice has been issued on 27.11.2017 from the authorized manufacturers having experience for supply of ISI mark bicycles with valid GST/VAT clearance. 9. At this point of time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application and this Court passed an interim order on 21.12.2017 to the following effect:- “WP(C) No.26687 of 2017 and M.C. No.22928 of 2017 02. 21.12.2017 The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned tender call notice dated 27.11.2017 has been issued by opposite party no.4 in contravention of the policy of the State Government, wherein it has been decided that the purchase should be made from the registered dealers of the district for which earlier tender call notice was issued on 20.09.2017 in which the petitioner had also participated. 2. It is contended that inviting bids from the manufacturer for purchase of the goods in question is contrary to the guideliness prescribed by the State Government. 3. In our view, the matter requires consideration. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit and the petitioner shall have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 5. List the matter immediately after four weeks. 3. In our view, the matter requires consideration. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit and the petitioner shall have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 5. List the matter immediately after four weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection. Accordingly, it is directed that no final decision in pursuance of the tender call notice dated 27.11.2017 issued by opposite party no.4 shall be taken till the next date of listing.” 10. In compliance of the said order dated 21.12.2017 passed by this Court, it is contended that no manufacturer has been allowed to supply the bicycles pursuant to the notice dated 27.11.2017. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4, while justifying the impugned action, it has been categorically stated in paragraph-5 as follows:- “5. That, the averments made in Paragraph-1 of the Writ Petition are incorrect, wholly misconceived, disputed and denied hereby. It is not a fact that the OP No. 4 has taken any illegal, arbitrary decision contrary to the guideliness of Labour Commissioner, Odisha-cum-Member Secretary, Odisha Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board. In fact, basing upon the letter No. 3079 dt. 28.11.16 of Labour Commissioner, Odisha Committee was constituted in Mayurbhanj district consisting the Collector as Chairman, Commercial Tax Officer, General Manager, DIC, and Dist. Labour Officer as members. Basing upon the Proceeding of the meeting held between Labour Commissioner, Odisha and the Commercial Tax Officials dtd. 26.10.16, the Committee decided to call for quotation from the registered Shops/Vendors for Empanelment for Supply and sell of Bicycle, Safety Equipment and working Tools to the Construction workers of Mayurbhanj district vide Notice No. 2418 dt. 20.09.17 (as at Annexure-2 of the Writ Petition). In response to the said notice, seven agencies had applied and the Dy. Commercial Tax Officer (Committee member) was requested to verify the GSTIN and VAT clearance of the agencies. After due verification, Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax prepared a tentative list of eligible vendors and communicated to Dist. Labour Officer on 26.10.17, where the petitioner was one of the eligible vendor. Commercial Tax Officer (Committee member) was requested to verify the GSTIN and VAT clearance of the agencies. After due verification, Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax prepared a tentative list of eligible vendors and communicated to Dist. Labour Officer on 26.10.17, where the petitioner was one of the eligible vendor. Since, no decision regarding finalization on preparation of empanelment list had been taken up, the Committee further discussed the said matter on 20.11.17 and expressed their concern towards supply of quality and timely delivery of such huge no of bicycle to the beneficiaries in a limited period and decided to involve manufacturers/vendors in the empanelment list which may probably help 85000 registered construction workers to purchase the same in a lower cost. Hence, keeping in view of the above fact and urgency and necessity of situation the committee decided to call for a fresh Expression of Interest (EOI) from the interested Manufacturers of bicycles only, for the district level empanelment only with an intention to add more nos. of vendors in empanelment list. Accordingly, the OP 4 called a fresh EOI on dtd. 27.11.17 vide notice No. 2870 (as at Annexure-5 of the Writ Petition).” 12. In view of the contention raised in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, as mentioned above, the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 have tried to justify their action for issuance of notice dated 27.11.2017, but no material has been placed on record to indicate such reasons, thereby, it can be construed that the reason, as has been mentioned in the counter affidavit, is an afterthought. More particularly, when the action taken pursuant to notice dated 20.09.2017 was on and pursuant to which the name of the petitioner was found placed at serial no.1 and the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be placed with the order of supply of bicycles for the beneficiaries of the Board, without canceling the said notice and without assigning any reasons, the issuance of fresh notice on 27.11.2017, in our considered opinion, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 13. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court that the reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. 13. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court that the reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. This view has been taken into consideration by the apex Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 and Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . 14. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the apex Court held as follows:- “the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the Court; or else, the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could with impunity be set at naught by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons.” 15. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , the apex Court held that keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of power by administrative authorities. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority is required to record reasons for its decision. 16. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205 , the Apex Court observed that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. 17. 16. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205 , the Apex Court observed that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. 17. In Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605 = AIR 1993 SC 1407 , the Apex Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne-out from the record. The Court further observed that, “reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for these erection and the actual conclusions. They would also administer how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Least it may not be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violate Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21”. 18. In Vasant D. Bhavsar v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 1 SCC 45 , the Apex Court held that an authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order indicating the materials on which its conclusions are based. Similar view has also been reiterated in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 953 and Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Govt. of India, v. CIPLA Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 3078 . 19. The opposite parties cannot justify their action by assigning reasons in the counter affidavit, in absence of any reasons placed on record in its proper perspective. This proposition no more remains res integra in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 and subsequently followed in catena of decisions including the Constitution Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 . 20. In view of the law discussed above and applying the same to the present context, we are of the considered view that the action of the opposite parties issuing notice dated 27.11.2017 in Annexure-5 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 21. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.