HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20724 of 2010 Date: September 02, 2010 Between: Bojja Sayanna. … Petitioner And 1. The Conservator of Forests, Adilabad Circle, Adilabad District and 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20724 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner’s vehicle, Mahindra Jeep bearing No.ATT 2218, was confiscated by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Echoda under proceedings dated 07.11.2009, the reason being that the said vehicle was alleged to have been involved in the commission of an offence under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad Circle, Adilabad, respondent No.1 herein. Aggrieved by the action of the forest authorities in not releasing the vehicle and using the vehicle for personal purposes, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P. No.5558 of 2010. By order dated 10.03.2010, this Court, disposed of the writ petition directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Acting thereupon, respondent No.1, the Appellate Authority, passed orders dated 16.5.2010 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order reads as under. “The remarks has been examined with reference to the appeal submitted by Sri B. Sayanna with connected records and after going through the records the orders issued by the Authorized Officer cum Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Echoda, holds good hence the following orders passed in this case as the appeal deserve no consideration. ORDER The appeal of Sri Bojja Sayanna s/o Ramulu, r/o Nigini is hereby rejected. He is requested to acknowledge the orders on the duplicate copy enclosed.” 2. The petitioner challenges the afore-stated order along with the primary order dated 07.11.2009 in the present writ petition and seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to release his vehicle. 3. I see no reason to go into the merits of the case as the matter suggests amenability to disposal on another ground. The Appellate Authority being conscious of the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition that it was required to dispose of the appeal within a time frame appears to have paid lip service to the said order by baldly rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. No reasons are forthcoming from the appellate order as to why the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected. 4. Absence of reasons in the order prima facie indicates lack of application of mind by the Appellate Authority. Reason, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless (Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar[1]). 5. Exercising quasi-judicial powers as an Appellate Authority, respondent No.1, ought to have been aware of what is expected of him while dealing with the petitioner’s appeal. The bald rejection of the petitioner’s appeal by way of a cryptic and non-speaking order offends the principles of natural justice. The order dated 16.5.2010 passed by the first respondent is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, respondent No.1, for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority shall complete this exercise and give a reasoned decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the afore- stated direction at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 02, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. by 03.9.2010. //B.O.// BSB [1] (2003) 11 SCC 579