JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the office order as contained in Memo No. 342, dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure-1) has been assailed by which the shops allotted in favour of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled. 2. The writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India solely on the ground that the said decision has been taken without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The matter was heard on 12.07.2019 and this Court after considering the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the writ petition has been filed giving go by to the alterative remedy available under the Statute solely on the ground that there is violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, this Court has directed the learned State counsel to come with the instruction as to whether the principles of natural justice has been violated or not. 4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr.S.C. II appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that he has not yet received any instruction, although due communication has been made before the competent authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even after going across the impugned order dated 31.12.2016, the said fact about non-compliance of the principles of natural justice can be appreciated, since there is no reference of any show cause notice, as would appear from the face of the said order and if the reference of the show cause notice or its consideration is not being reflected, even if the counter affidavit would come, the only plea can be taken by the State authority that the principles of natural justice has been violated, then the question of consideration would be there, as to whether after furnishing a reply to the said show cause, any consideration of the said reply has been made or not and if there is a consideration, the same be reflected from the face of the order. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned State counsel has not objected to such legal position. 7. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned State counsel has not objected to such legal position. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on appreciating their rival submission, this Court has found from the record that the matter was heard on 12.07.2019 and an opportunity upon the State authorities have been provided to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed, therefore, this Court has proceeded for hearing, taking into consideration the legal issues raised by the petitioner in assailing the order dated 31.12.2016 i.e. the violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute so far as the legal position is concerned that if no reason has been assigned or no consideration is there, the same cannot be improved by way of an affidavit. Reference in this regard may be made to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 in paragraph 8 as under: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” In the case of East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 483, at page 682, it has been held as under: “9. There is no quarrel with the well-settled proposition of law that an order passed by a public authority exercising administrative/executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or any record or file contemporaneously maintained. It follows that the infirmity arising out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authority passing the order stating such reasons in an affidavit filed before the court where the validity of any such order is under challenge. The legal position in this regard is settled by the decision of this Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji1 wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 18, para 9) “9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” In the case of United Air Travel Services v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 141 , at page 146 it has been held as under: “11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, rightly drawn our attention to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. to submit that such a plea cannot be accepted. We may note that this is a well-settled legal position in many judicial pronouncements of this Court, but it is not necessary to revert to the same. In para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in his inimitable style states as under: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji4: (AIR p. 18, para 9) 9. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji4: (AIR p. 18, para 9) 9. …public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” This ratio having been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court right from the year 1952, settled that the reason, which is not available in the impugned order, the same cannot be improved by way of an affidavit. Further, since this Court is proceeding to dispose of the writ petition in absence of the counter affidavit, even accepting that the principles of natural justice has been followed then the question of consideration would come, meaning thereby, if the show cause notice has been issued and the same has been responded to by the petitioner in terms of the said show cause, having been sought to be shown by the petitioner, there must be consideration for taking decision either negative or positive and the same also has to be reflected from bare reading of the impugned order, consideration does suggest the application of mind as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of LIC v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 , at page 537 at para 19, which reads hereunder as:- “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat.)” This Court has examined the question of not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by going across the impugned order dated 31.12.2016, wherefrom, it is evident that no reference of any show cause has been made and thereby, there is no consideration and the consideration would not be there, since no show cause has been issued having been referred in the impugned order, therefore, this Court after applying the ratio, as referred hereinabove, is of the view that even though the alternative remedy of appeal, as has been provided under the Statute, but since, there is violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, applying the ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation-Vs.-Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 31.12.2016 is quashed. It is also settled that on technicality nobody can be allowed to take advantage, therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back before the original authority to take decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing and by taking a decision in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 8. The final outcome of the order, as directed by this Court as above, would depend upon the future course of action. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.