JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 24.06.2019 as contained under Memo No.1313 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.6480 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the cancellation of explosive license has been upheld by assigning the reason that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found to be not proved. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the explosive license was issued under the provision of Explosive Regulation, 2008 but the same has been cancelled which was the subject of challenge before this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.6480 of 2016 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 11.10.2018 has passed an order upon the respondent no.3 to the said writ petition to pass a reasoned order under Section 115 of the Rules, 2008 after giving specific show cause notice and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations levelled against him. The decision has been taken on 24.06.2019 after serving show cause, reflecting irregularity has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner which has duly been responded by him but without its consideration, the charges have been found to be proved and thereby, cancellation of no objection certificate has been found to be justifiable. 3. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that the exhaustive reply has been submitted denying the allegation/irregularity but without any consideration thereof, the impugned decision has taken and as such, this order is sustainable in the eye of Law. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has also agreed with the legal position as has been agitated by the petitioner and has fairly submitted to remit the matter before the authority concerned to pass appropriate order after assigning the reason on the basis of the material available on record. 5. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has also agreed with the legal position as has been agitated by the petitioner and has fairly submitted to remit the matter before the authority concerned to pass appropriate order after assigning the reason on the basis of the material available on record. 5. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the fair submission made on behalf of the learned Advocate General without referring to the legal position as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is of the view that the order dated 24.06.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of Law mainly for the reason that if show cause has been issued in favour of the petitioner which has duly been responded, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority being conferred with the statutory power under the Explosive Act to consider the said reply before coming to the conclusion. 6. The “consideration” means that active application of mind and active application of mind is to be reflected from the order. The definition of “consideration” fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., Vrs. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 wherein at para-19 it has been held which reads as hereunder:- “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.” This Court, therefore, is of the view that licensing authority without any application of mind has found the charge proved and as such, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of Law. 7. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” This Court, therefore, is of the view that licensing authority without any application of mind has found the charge proved and as such, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of Law. 7. This Court has also considered that even if the time would have been allowed to file counter affidavit and also the decision which has been taken as on 24.06.2019, would not have been improved. In view of the position of Law that reason which is not available in the order cannot be developed by way of an affidavit as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in (1952) SC 16 pr.9 which reads here under 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., reported in (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., reported in (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., reported in (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), reported in (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.’’ 8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 (annexure-21), is quashed. 9. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:- Public orders, publicly made .... ............................................................................itself.’’ 8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 (annexure-21), is quashed. 9. In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to pass fresh order by considering the reply already submitted by the petitioner within the period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 10. The consequence of the final order will govern the further course of the action. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.