IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1219 of 2001 UMA SHANKER KESHRI @ MOHAN PD.KESHARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 20.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on respondents no. 4 to 7, no one has appeared on their behalf. From a perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, it is absolutely clear that a reasoned order in favour of the petitioner dated 12.9.1990 (Annexure 4) has been set aside without giving any reasons and that too behind the back of the petitioner. The definite assertion of the petitioner that no notice of this appeal filed by respondents no. 4 to 7 was ever given to the petitioner also has not been denied either by the counsel for the State by filing any counter affidavit or by the private respondents. That apart when this Court would find that no reasons have been given even in the impugned appellate order there would be little option for this Court but to set aside the order. It is well settled that when a proceeding is decided 2 ex-parte the reasons for allowing the relief must be recorded by the court. In absence thereof it would be only a case of mechanical application of mind or no application of mind. That being so, this Court would find that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, cannot be sustained either on fact or in law and accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority who now after giving notice to both the parties will decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The appellate authority is expected to expedite the matter as it is an old case. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/