IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8285 OF 2009 Shri Girgol Santan Fernandes. ... Petitioner. V/s. Smt.Namrata Nitin Kubal and others. ... Respondents. D.A.Patil with M.P.Parab for the petitioner. N.V.Walawalkar, senior counsel with Sudhir Prabhu for respondent No.1. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 22nd January, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused petition and impugned order. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 16th September, 2009 passed by the Collector, Sindhudurga on the application dated 15th September, 2009. The Facts : 4. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was elected as an independent candidate to the Municipal Council of Vengurla. He was member of the Front headed by one Smt.Namrata Nitin Kubal. The petitioner, on 15th June, 2009, tendered resignation of the membership of the Front. The respondent No.1 filed an application before the Collector, Sindhudurga seeking disqualification of the petitioner under section 3(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Member Disqualification Act, 1986 ( said Rules for short) for having tendered resignation. 5. The Collector was pleased to take cognizance of the matter and framed charges against the petitioner vide order dated 4th September, 2009. The petitioner filed his reply on 15th September, 2009 and claimed that the application was not tenable under the rules for want of compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules. The Collector rejected said application holding that the application made by respondent No.1 dated 20th June, 2009 was very much maintainable as per the said Rules. 6. The aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consideration : 7. Having heard rival parties, it is not in dispute that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. This method of deciding application without recorded reasons is unknown to law. The Collector was expected to know that his orders are subject to challenge before higher forum. He was expected to know that reasons introduce clarity in the order. On plainest consideration of justice, the Collector ought to have set forth the reasons, howsoever brief, in his order indicative of an application of his mind. The absence of reasons has rendered the order unsustainable being in breach of principles of natural justice. 8. It is needless to mention that the basic rule of law and natural justice require recording of reasons in support of the order. The order has to be self-explanatory and should not keep the higher court guessing for reasons. That vital link is the safeguard against the arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. Reason is a manifest of mind of the person passing the order. It is a tool for judging the legality of the order which gives opportunity to the higher court to see whether or not the authority passing the order proceeded with the relevant material on record. 9. Considering the consensus between the parties to the petition, the impugned order is quashed and set aside it being a non-speaking order, in breach of the principles of natural justice. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, since the impugned order is quashed and set aside, the proceedings are remitted back to respondent No.2 for consideration afresh keeping all rival contentions open. The Collector is expected to decide the remanded proceedings with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by reasoned order following principles of natural justice. 11. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA J.)