JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant to the instant interlocutory application has referred to the order dated 16.09.2019 and has submitted that appropriate order may be passed upon the said interlocutory application since no objection has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Submission has been made that the entire proceeding has been initiated by the applicant namely, Anamul Haque and on his complaint the order has been passed, therefore, he being a necessary party ought to have been impleaded as party to the proceeding but the petitioner for deliberate reason has not impleaded him as party. 3. Further submission has been made that if the applicant would not be impleaded as party and in case of passing of an order, his right/interest will be prejudiced. 4. Learned counsel for the State as also for the petitioner have not raised objection to such prayer made in the instant interlocutory application. 5. This Court, after considering the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant and having no objection from the other side as also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the complainant basis upon which the enquiry has been conducted and impugned order has been passed, deem it fit and proper that the applicant being a necessary party is required to be impleaded as respondent No.8 otherwise, the interest of the applicant would seriously be prejudiced. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed, in the result, Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the respondent. 7. In view thereof, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.3183 of 2019:- 8. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the decision as contained in Letter bearing Memo No.2158(6)/Ranchi dated 21.06.2019 has been sought to be quashed by which the membership of the petitioner for the Tigra Prathmik Bunkar Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Ratu Ranchi has been terminated and upon quashing the said letter a direction has been sought for upon the respondents to forthwith restore the membership of the petitioner for the said Samiti. 9. 9. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that he was a member of the Irba Primary Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. since the year 1979 and has resigned from the membership of the said society on 06.09.2007 which was accepted by the Society on 10.01.2008 as would be evident from the certificate dated 10.02.2017. Further fact of the case is that in Tigra, there exists a society in the name of Tigra Prathmik Bunkar Sahyog Samiti Ltd. and as per Clause 10 of the by-laws of the Samiti provides that any person who resides in the work area of the Samiti can become its member. 10. The petitioner being a resident of the Tigra and was otherwise eligible for the membership of the said Samiti, he applied for membership of the said Samiti which was considered by the Managing Committee of the Samiti and subsequently the membership of the petitioner was approved and thereafter, he was granted membership of the said Samiti and accordingly, membership number has been allotted along with the consequential benefit which is applicable to be extended in favour of one or the other members. 11. One Anamul Haque, the newly impleaded respondent has made some complaints regarding functioning of the said committee and the membership of the petitioner which resulted into a direction for conducting an enquiry, in pursuance thereto, enquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Registrar finding no substance and allegation. Again complaint has been made by the said Anamul Haque which again resulted into conducting an enquiry, in consequence thereof, a show cause notice was issued which has been responded by the petitioner, thereafter a decision has been taken for cancellation of membership of the petitioner vide order passed by Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jhakrhand, Ranchi on 21.06.2019, the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 12. 12. The ground agitated by the petitioner is that on earlier enquiry allegation leveled against the petitioner by the newly impleaded respondent No.8 has been found to be untrue but subsequently again on complaint, another enquiry was conducted but very surprisingly the petitioner has not been asked to appear before the enquiry committee and after submission of the said enquiry report, a show cause notice has been issued which has been responded by the petitioner but without assigning any reason the decision has been taken on 21.06.2019. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is violation of principles of natural justice as because absence of any reason while taking any adverse decision amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Further submission has been made that the reason has been tried to bring on record by way of affidavit but it is not permissible as because if the reason is not available in the impugned order, the same cannot be allowed to be developed by way of affidavit. 13. Counter affidavits have been filed the State-respondent on fact the response has been given by taking the stand that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the order impugned may not be interfered with. It has further been stated that adequate opportunity of hearing has been provided and when the irregularity as has been pointed out by the respondent No.8 has been enquired into, the same has been found to be genuine, in consequence thereof, show cause notice has been issued which has been responded and thereafter, the decision has been taken by cancelling the membership of the petitioner. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order which has been passed by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the said counter affidavit inter allia stating therein that in the counter affidavit no such reason has been made available about differing with the stand taken by the petitioner in reply, submitted in the reply to show cause but the same has been tried to be improved by way of affidavit which cannot be allowed to be made part of the impugned order. 15. 15. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the order and before going into the factual dispute, deem it and proper to first appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the plea taken about violation of principles of natural justice on two counts : (i) that there is no consideration of show cause since no reason has been assigned and non-assignment of reason amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) if there is no reason available on the face of the order, the same cannot be allowed to be improved by way of an affidavit. 16. The question of consideration means the active application of mind by the authority concerned and active consideration of mind would only be said to be consideration if the factual aspect would be dealt with by the authority while taking decision only by which it can be said that the proper consideration has been given with respect to the issue agitated, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 pr.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. 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." It is evident from the aforesaid ratio laid down as referred hereinabove that consideration always means active application of mind by going through the issues which have been raised by the party before the competent authority and if there is no discussion, that lacks consideration. 17. Further question would be that even if the show cause notice has been issued and if there is no consideration of the plea taken, can it be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. 17. Further question would be that even if the show cause notice has been issued and if there is no consideration of the plea taken, can it be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. The answer of this Court would be in affirmative as because if any show cause notice has been issued, the same is for specific purpose i.e., to provide an opportunity to rebut before taking any decision adverse to the interest of the party. The natural justice does not only mean issuance of show cause rather its consideration and consideration would only come if the fact as has been agitated by the person concerned would be considered before taking such decision, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 pr.39 , which reads hereunder as:- "39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act,1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act,1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act,1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act,1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underly-ing such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case." Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Ors.,2009 4 AIR(SCC) 240 pr.8, which reads hereunder as :- "8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation." It would be evident from the aforesaid legal position that in absence of a reason if order would be passed, it will be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. 18. 18. It is also equally settled that reason if not assigned that cannot be allowed to be developed by way of affidavit that is because of the reason that affidavit can only be filed if the order is assailed before the Court of law, suppose the order is being unassailed, can it be allowed to stand in absence of any reason assigned therein, admittedly, the answer would be in negative since, if any order either by the administrative or by quasi-judicial authority or by court of law is being passed, it is incumbent upon the said authority to pass order by assigning reason to be reflected from the face of the order, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji,1952 SC 16 pr.9 which reads hereunder as:- "9. We are clear that 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 be 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 Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405 pr.8, which reads hereunder as:- "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........................................ ..............................................................................itself." In the case of East Coast Railway and Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678 pr.9, which reads hereunder as:- "9. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji. Public orders, publicly made........................................ ..............................................................................itself." In the case of East Coast Railway and Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678 pr.9, which reads hereunder as:- "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 Bhanji wherein this Court observed: Public orders, publicly made........................................ ..............................................................................itself." In the case of United Air Travel Services through its proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan vs. Union of India through Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs), (2018) 8 SCC 141 pr.11, which reads hereunder as:- "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 Bhanji:- Public orders, publicly made........................................ ............................................................................itself."" 19. 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........................................ ............................................................................itself."" 19. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, the order impugned has been appreciated by this Court wherefrom it is evident that in terms of the show cause notice, the response has been submitted and the said response has been appreciated by the Deputy Registrar which has been brought on record by way of affidavit wherefrom it is evident that critical appreciation of the reply has been recorded but as would appear from the impugned order, no such consideration is there, therefore, this Court, is of the view that the order impugned dated 21.06.2019 is held to be illegal and improper on two grounds, that: (i) there is no consideration of the show cause since nothing is being reflected from the face of the order; (ii) the reason has been tried to be improved by way of an affidavit which is not permissible. 20. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 is held to be unsustainable, in consequence thereof, the same is quashed. 21. Since the order dated 21.06.2019 is being quashed on the ground of non-consideration of the reply, therefore, this Court is not delving with the merit of the issues rather leaving it open for its consideration by the authority concerned. 22. Accordingly, the matter is remitted before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due consideration of the reply already filed by the petitioner in terms of the show cause within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 23. Further consequence will follow depending upon the decision to be taken as directed above. 24. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of.