THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15512 OF 2010 DT.19.07.2010 Between: Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, represented by its Joint Secretary, R.R.District. ……..Petitioner. Vs. Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And two others. ……………..Respondents. O R D E R: Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 25.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District, withdrawing the permission/recognition of the petitioner institution, the present writ petition is filed. Apropos issuance of unauthorised bona fide certificates by the petitioner institution, show cause notice dated 12.10.2009 was issued by the District Educational Officer, calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why its recognition should not be withdrawn. The case of the petitioner institution is that some of its employees including the correspondent, had indulged in this mischief and that it had taken necessary disciplinary action against them. However, the District Educational officer, by his order dated 09.03.2010, de-recognised the petitioner institution. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner in the first instance filed W.P.No.8187 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed in view of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to it under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. There upon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2010, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. The operative portion of the appellate authority’s order dated 25.06.2010 reads as under: “The appellant herself admitted the mistake in her appeal stating that the then Correspondent and Clerk have committed mistake for issuing of bogus certificates and so, they have suspended the then Correspondent Sri P.Srinivasa Rao who is responsible for the mischief and appointed new Correspondent. There are no merits in the case to stay the orders of the District Educational Officer issued in proceedings Re.No.Spl/Ca-09-10 dated 09.03.2010. In view of findings stated above, the action of the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy is upheld and thus the appeal is disposed of.” It is therefore clear from the paragraphs extracted above that the appellate authority was considering the case of the petitioner society on the stay application till the second last paragraph as indicated by the observation that there are no merits for staying the orders of the District Educational Officer dated 09.03.2010. Immediately thereafter, the appellate authority stated that in view of this finding, the action of the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District was upheld and that the appeal is disposed of. There is no discussion whatsoever on the merits of the appeal. Merely because the appellate authority found that no case was made out for granting a stay order, it is not reason enough to dismiss the appeal itself. Needless to state, being a quasi judicial body, the appellate authority has to disclose the reasons which weighed with it for dismissing the petitioner society’s appeal and confirming the order under appeal. Reason as pointed out by the Supreme Court in RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[1] is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The manner in which the appellate authority dealt with the matter therefore leaves a lot to be desired. The order dated 25.06.2010 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass orders afresh after considering the appeal on its merits, giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society. The appellate authority shall pass reasoned orders in the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR J., Dt.19.07.2010 tjs [1] ) 2003 (11) SCC 572