JUDGMENT : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging an office order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby, the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 were transferred from BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu to other BSUP Housing Complexes. The petitioners, four in nos., have challenged the said office order dated 08.03.2019 wherein the petitioner no. 2 has joined the other three writ petitioners as he had also received a show-cause notice dated 16.02.2019 like the other three writ petitioners, prior to the passing of the impugned office order dated 08.03.2019. 2. The Basic Service to the Urban Poor (BSUP) is a Sub-Mission under the JnNURM Programme launched to tackle urban poverty by way of relocation of urban poor people and slum dwellers. As per the guidelines issued in this regard, the main targets of the BSUP Sub-Mission are, inter-alia, to provide the basic needs to the urban poor people and to the public at large in the form of dwelling houses, water and electrical supplies and other services like education, health, occupation, etc. In so far as Aizawl city is concerned, the BSUP Projects are located in three places, (a) Chite – Lawipu (Combined Project), (b) Rangvamual, and (c) Durtlang. These three BSUP Housing Projects have 408 dwelling units, 368 dwelling units and 320 dwelling units respectively. 3. So far as the petitioners viz. the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 4 are concerned, dwelling units were allotted by the respondent no. 3 by 3 (three) separate BSUP allotment orders, all dated 17.05.2018. The respondent no. 3 had issued BSUP allotment order dated 17.05.2018 in favour the wife of the petitioner no. 3 vis. Ms. R. Zothanpari. Such allotment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners after finding that they belonged to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and they were living in Aizawl for the past 5 years. The petitioner no. 1 was allotted House no. 101 at Block no. 16 while the petitioner no. 2 was allotted House no. 202 at Block no. 16. The wife of the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 were allotted House no. 202 at Block 6 and House no. 203 at Block 5 respectively. The petitioner no. 1 was allotted House no. 101 at Block no. 16 while the petitioner no. 2 was allotted House no. 202 at Block no. 16. The wife of the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 were allotted House no. 202 at Block 6 and House no. 203 at Block 5 respectively. After being allotted the aforesaid dwelling units, the petitioners started living in those dwelling units from the year 2018. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the BSUP Housing Complex they were living is located in the outskirt of Lawipu and their children had to attend at Lawipu Primary School which is situated at a distance of about 1.5 kilometers. The BSUP Housing Blocks at Lawipu have 408 nos. of dwelling units. As the inhabitants of the dwelling units found difficulties in sending their children to the distantly located school, there was consensus of opinion amongst large number of dwelling unit holders that there should be a Primary School and/or Middle School inside the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu. To that effect, the petitioners took some lead to represent before the Minister of School Education, Mizoram by submitting a representation in the month of February, 2019 with copies to other public representatives. One such public representative belonging to the political party, Mizo National Front (MNF), on receipt of the representation from the petitioners, also requested the Education Minister, Mizoram to look into the matter and to take necessary steps in that regard. 5. It was in the backdrop of such events, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 who are private organizations along with the respondent no. 8 i.e. the Housing Society of BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu had brought allegations that the petitioners along with others had formed an association, without their permission, and had brought disrepute and created disturbance in the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 convened an emergency meeting on 12.02.2019 and pressed upon the respondent no. 3 that the four petitioners and two others because of their alleged activities, were to be ousted from the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu on or before 28.02.2019. An order stated to have been issued by the respondent nos. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 convened an emergency meeting on 12.02.2019 and pressed upon the respondent no. 3 that the four petitioners and two others because of their alleged activities, were to be ousted from the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu on or before 28.02.2019. An order stated to have been issued by the respondent nos. 4 to 8 wherein they had resolved that if the four petitioners and two other persons named therein were not moved out from the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu, then the whole locality would move them out on 01.03.2019. 6. Thereafter on 26.02.2019, the respondent no. 3 had issued a show-cause notice to the six persons including the four petitioners, asking them to explain on 27.02.2019 as to why action should not be taken against them. Certain allegations were leveled against those noticees in the said show-cause notice by the respondent no. 3. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, the petitioners appeared before the respondent no. 3 and denied the allegations stated to have been leveled against them. It was the stand of the petitioners that they had tried to highlight the difficulties faced by the dwelling unit holders of BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu in respect of the education of their children only and the need about a school in the housing complex in a peaceful manner by discussing with some fellow inhabitants of the housing complex and there was no subversive activities in that regard. 7. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Linda has also represented for the private respondent nos. 4 to 8 in this writ petition. 8. Mr. Tochhawng, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that subsequent to the afore-stated events, the respondent no. 3 had issued the impugned order on 08.03.2019 whereby the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 had been transferred from BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu to different BSUP locations. While petitioner no. 1 has been transferred to BSUP Housing Complex, Durtlang, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 had been transferred to BSUP Housing Complex, Rengvamual. It is ex-facie apparent from the impugned office order, he submits, that the respondent no. 4 had been transferred from BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu to different BSUP locations. While petitioner no. 1 has been transferred to BSUP Housing Complex, Durtlang, the petitioner no. 3 and the petitioner no. 4 had been transferred to BSUP Housing Complex, Rengvamual. It is ex-facie apparent from the impugned office order, he submits, that the respondent no. 3 while issuing the impugned office order, had acted at the behest of the respondent nos. 4 to 8. It is clearly evident that the respondent no. 3 had surrendered and abdicated his power and jurisdiction. The respondent nos. 4 to 8, who had no authority to oust the petitioners from the dwelling units allotted by the respondent no. 3 were instrumental in issuance of the impugned office order. The impugned office order was not preceded by any kind of enquiry as to whether the allegations leveled against the petitioners were correct or not. There is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the manner of such transfer and dislocation of the petitioners is unsustainable in law and hence, the impugned office order dated 08.03.2019 is liable to be set aside. 9. Ms. Linda, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 who also, incidentally, represents the private respondent nos. 4 to 8, has submitted that the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 were instrumental in organizing association, which was against the BSUP Housing Society Regulations and the petitioners, by their acts, had disturbed the peace and tranquility in the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu. In so far as the roles of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are concerned, she has submitted that the respondent no. 4 in the capacity of the Chairman of Lawipu Local Council and the respondent no. 5 as the Branch President, Young Mizo Association, have been inducted in the BSUP Housing Society as the President and the Secretary respectively and in such view of the matter, they can take appropriate actions if there is nuisance and disturbance of peace in the BSUP Housing Complex. The respondent nos. 6 and 7, according to her, are the persons who head public organizations of the locality. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 had to take the impugned action in order to prevent disturbance of peace and nuisance in the BSUP Housing Society. The respondent nos. 6 and 7, according to her, are the persons who head public organizations of the locality. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 had to take the impugned action in order to prevent disturbance of peace and nuisance in the BSUP Housing Society. By the impugned action, she submits, none of the petitioners were ousted/evicted from the BSUP dwelling units, as they had been re-allocated in other BSUP Housing Complexes. She, thus, submits that no interference is called for in this respect. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The State respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted an affidavit-in-opposition traversing the statements and averments made by the writ petitioners. According to them, no school building is permitted within the BSUP Housing Complexes under the BSUP-JnNRUM except a livelihood centre and a community centre. Except a BSUP Society, no other association, group of people or interest group can be recognized by the Nodal Department i.e. the Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Department. It is, however, stated that all other community based organizations/NGOs of Lawipu function within the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu. The demand of establishing schools inside the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu by the petitioners is not permissible under the Society Regulations and as such, the petitioners ought not to have raised such unjustified demands. In respect of the events leading to passing of the impugned office order, it is the version of the respondent no. 3 that the respondent no. 8 approached the respondent nos. 4 to 7 who, in turn, called an emergency meeting on 20.02.2019. The joint meeting of respondent nos. 4 to 8 held at Lawipu decided to oust the petitioners alleging that they were the leaders of the groups raising demands for school. The petitioners were accordingly, given notice by the respondent nos. 4 to 8 to move out of the Lawipu locality on or before 28.02.2019. Having got the knowledge about the same, the Nodal Department requested the respondent nos. 4 to 8 who are private organizations, to wait for the decision of the Government and accordingly, a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioners and two other persons. As the allegations leveled against the petitioners were found to be correct, the petitioners were requested to make letter of apology to the respondent nos. 4 to 8 who are private organizations, to wait for the decision of the Government and accordingly, a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioners and two other persons. As the allegations leveled against the petitioners were found to be correct, the petitioners were requested to make letter of apology to the respondent nos. 4 to 8. In a meeting held in the office chamber of the respondent no. 3 on 01.03.2019, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 had informed that for prevention of future problems in the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu, the petitioners must be expelled therefrom at the earliest and if the State respondents cannot do it then they would do it. It was requested by the respondent no. 3, as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, to the private respondents not to take the law in their own hands and it was after consultation with the various stakeholders, the respondent no. 3 decided to transfer the petitioner no. 1, 3 and 4 to the BSUP Housing Complexes located in other locations. No transfer order was passed in respect of the petitioner no. 2. It transpires from the pleadings that the petitioner no. 2 was not transferred as he tendered apology before the respondents for his alleged participation. 12. In order to properly appreciate the issue, the impugned office order dated 08.03.2019 is required to be extracted in its entirety. GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVIATION DEPTT. 2. It transpires from the pleadings that the petitioner no. 2 was not transferred as he tendered apology before the respondents for his alleged participation. 12. In order to properly appreciate the issue, the impugned office order dated 08.03.2019 is required to be extracted in its entirety. GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVIATION DEPTT. MIZORAM : AIZAWL Dated : Aizawl, the 8the March, 2019 OFFICE ORDER No.B.13022/4/2018-DTE(UD&PA) : Upon the request made by Lawipu BSUP Housing Society and All NGO Committee, Lawipu the alleged people who are found to take steps against the guidelines of the Housing Society and community harmony are being transfer to the allotted place give below: Name Current Resident Transfer Resident Location C. Lalrinawma BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu House No. 104, Block No. 5 BSUP Housing Complex, Durtlang House No. 402, Block No. 14 R.C. Thuama BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu House No. 101, Block No. 16 BSUP Housing Complex, Durtlang House No. 302, Block No. 12 R. Lalvenhima (H/o R. Zothanpari) BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu House No. 202, Block No. 6 BSUP Housing Complex, Rangvamual House No. 401, Block No. 6 H. Sangkunga BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu House No. 203, Block No. 5 BSUP Housing Complex, Rangvamual House No. 304, Block No. 2 The above given names are hereby informed to move the transfer location on or before 15th March, 2019. Director, Urban Dev. & Poverty Alleviation Deptt Mizoram : Aizawl 13. It is well settled in law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 , 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 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 acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. It has been held in Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 504 , that exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling a permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial complexion. It has been held in Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 504 , that exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling a permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial complexion. In exercising of such power, the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority’s discretion that is exercised but someone else’s. If an authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to power plainly clearly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. 14. Every decision of an administrative or executive in nature must be a speaking and reasoned one and it should contain all the reasons which prevail on the authority taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. The authority which has taken the action cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by him in an impugned action. 15. It is ex-facie evident from the impugned office order itself that the respondent no. 3 had acted on the requests made by the private respondents and while passing the order, there was no independent and proper application of mind on its part. It is evident that the impugned office order has been passed bringing adverse consequence in respect of the petitioners on requests made by the private respondents on the ground that the petitioners were found to have taken steps against the guidelines of the Housing Society which, according to these private entities, were detrimental for the harmony in the locality. It is clearly demonstrated that the respondent no. 3 had abdicated and surrendered his authority and jurisdiction in view of the prior steps and action taken by the private respondents. The private respondents in reference to the show-cause notice dated 26.02.2019 served to the petitioners, had informed the respondent no. 3 about the resolution taken in a joint meeting held on 27.02.2019. By the said letter dated 27.02.2019, the private respondents had informed the respondent no. The private respondents in reference to the show-cause notice dated 26.02.2019 served to the petitioners, had informed the respondent no. 3 about the resolution taken in a joint meeting held on 27.02.2019. By the said letter dated 27.02.2019, the private respondents had informed the respondent no. 3 that the allotment cancellation order or allotment transfer order must be issued to the six persons who were asked to show-cause including the four petitioners, on or before 11.03.2019. It was threatened thereby that if the orders were not issued on or before 11.03.2019, appropriate steps would be taken to let all of them out from the BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu on 12.03.2019. It was further mentioned therein that all the six persons had tendered their written apology before the private respondents but they had not forgiven them. From the afore-stated events and from the reason assigned in the impugned order, it is ex-facie apparent that the respondent no. 3 had passed the impugned office order dated 09.03.2019 at the behest of the private respondents by abdicating and surrendering his power and authority and there was no independent and proper application of mind on his part while issuing the impugned office order. This Court in the Article 19 of the Constitution of India, has failed to comprehend as to how the purported action of the petitioners to form association or to assembly peacefully was illegal. 16. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned office order dated 09.03.2019 is found not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners be restored the possession of the BSUP dwelling units they were allotted vide BSUP allotment orders (supra). The interim order passed earlier on 13.08.2019 is to abide by this order. Upon consideration of the events unfolded prior to the impugned office order, it is further directed that the State respondents including the respondent no. 3, shall ensure that the petitioners are not disturbed in respect of their peaceful occupation of the dwelling units and facilities of BSUP Housing Complex, Lawipu in any unlawful manner. 17. With the observations made and the direction given above, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. 18. This Court acknowledging the services rendered by Mr. 17. With the observations made and the direction given above, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. 18. This Court acknowledging the services rendered by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, as a Legal Aid Counsel in the case has expected that the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, shall ensure an expeditious disbursement of his professional fees in terms of the prescribed act/rules/regulations.