“Before parting with the judgment, a reference is required to be made to the fact that the Civil Judge has given permission under section 91 of the Act (Sic: Code). The said application Exh. 11 was produced before this Court. It is alleged in the said application that this mis-administration causes a public nuisance which affect the public in general, and therefore, the permission may be granted. Surprisingly, the Court has passed one word order viz. "Allowed" and the suit has been entertained on the basis of such a cryptic one word order. In fact when the law contemplates that such a suit to be instituted on a leave being granted by the Court to institute such a suit, the law enjoins a duty on the Court that such a power should be exercised judiciously and not in arbitrary manner as has been exercised in the present matter. In fact the Court should have passed a reasoned order so that it would have been known to this Court and/or the parties as to why the permission has been granted by the Court to institute such a suit. And, therefore, the courts, hence-forth will take notice that while granting permissions and/or leave under section 91, the Court shall pass a reasoned order instead of passing one word order which does not show application of mind and renders the order as arbitrary one. Any power, if not exercised judiciously and with reasons, renders the said order into arbitrary one and liable to be struck down and therefore the very permission which has been granted to institute the suit under section 91 of the Act is hereby struck down and the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby returned.
