HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 14234 OF 2011 . DATED 6th June 2011 BETWEEN M/s. Swathi Granites, Rep. by its Managing Partner, J.Linga Rao Karimnagar …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 14234 of 2011 ORDER: Pursuant to the application made by the third respondent on 23.10.2006 for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 15 hectors in Sy.No.578 of Singapur Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 19.9.2007 granted lease in its favour for a period of twenty years subject to the condition of executing lease deed in Form-G, within sixty days from the date of grant as per Rule 12 (5)(e) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the 1966 Rules’). When the third respondent did not come forward to execute the lease deed, the second respondent had extended the time twice vide proceedings dated 24.05.2008. Even then also, the third respondent failed to execute the lease deed. In those circumstances, in exercise of powers under Rule 12(5)(e) of the 1966 Rules, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 29.08.2009 revoked the grant of quarry lease to the third respondent. Questioning the said revocation orders dated 29.08.2009, the third respondent filed revision application before the first respondent on 17.01.2011, with delay condonation petition. During the pendency of the revision application, the petitioner filed an application on 24.01.2011 for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 21 hectors in the same survey number, i.e., Sy.No.578 situate at Singapur village. Knowing that the third respondent has preferred revision application and the same is pending consideration before the first respondent, the petitioner has filed implead petition and contested the revision application filed by the petitioner. The first respondent vide order impugned in this writ petition viz. dated 03.05.2011 allowed the revision application filed by the third respondent. Challenging the validity and propriety of the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the revision application under Rule 35-A of the 1966 Rules and that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the first respondent in condoning the delay in filing the revision application as well as in allowing the revision application filed by the third respondent and that when the fresh application of the petitioner is pending consideration, the Government ought to have considered the same in as much as it is ready to execute the quarry lease. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the first respondent has rightly allowed the revision application filed by the third respondent, who is an prior applicant to the quarry lease in question having granted the same in the year 2007 itself. He submitted that due to the ill- health, the third respondent could not file the revision application within the stipulated time. The learned Counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the first respondent is well in the domain of the first respondent and that there are no valid and legitimate grounds to interfere with the same. I have perused the order under challenge which discloses that the condone delay petition and the revision application have been disposed of in a rather casual and mechanical manner. It is opt to reproduce the concluding part of the same, which reads as under: “7. In order to dispose of the Revision Application, a personal hearing was conducted on 08.04.2011 and the Revision Authority reviewed the case. The Revisional Authority, after taking the material made available into consideration and the grounds of the petitioner as explained above and the arguments put forth by the petitioner and also respondents during the hearing in specific, hereby restore the quarry lease held by the petitioner duly setting aside the proceedings No.12575/R6-3/2009, dated 29.8.2009 of the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, by collecting all the dues to the Government (if not paid) if any before execution of lease deed and duly condoning the delay in filing the Revision Application. Accordingly, the Revision Application and the Implead Petition are disposed off under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966.” It is well settled that reason is the heartbeat of the every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The revisional authority will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by interfering where interference is imperative. In a case of this nature, where counter case has been registered, the Court/authority hearing the same has to scrutinize the evidence/ material available on record and submissions put forth by the Counsel on either side, with greater detail, and record reasons for its conclusion. The revisional authority ought to have set forth its reasons for allowing both the petitions, howsoever brief in its order, indicative of its application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The affected party can know as to why the decision has gone against him. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) inter alia observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 1CR 120) (NIRC) it was observed inter alia that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectively by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. The above position was highlighted by the Apex Court in the State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547). Since the order of the first respondent is practically non-reasoned, the course left open is to remit the matter to the first respondent to rehear the condone delay application and revision application and pass a reasoned order dealing with all relevant aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to rehear as stated supra and pass reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the first respondent on 18th July, 2011. All contentions are kept open. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- ---- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 6th June, 2011. Msnro Note: CC by tomorrow (BO) Msnr.