THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.16527 of 2010 27-07-2010 BETWEEN; The Government of A.P represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance, Hyderabad and others ...Petitioners vs. Smt.G.M.Kanchana Latha and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 16527 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The State is before this Court challenging an order dated 17 06-2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (th Tribunal) rejecting V.M.A.Nos.755 and 968 of 2010 in O.A.No.1988 o 2010. O.A.No.1988 of 2010 was filed by the 1st respondent herei challenging an order of reversion from the post of Superintendent in th Directorate of Insurance consequent on the representation of th respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Stay of reversion was initially grante recording reasons therefor. On the representation of the non-officia respondents in the O.A., they were permitted to make a representation t the Government. The representation was entertained and the Stat Government ordered the reversion of the original applicant on which th Tribunal again granted stay. Seeking vacation of the stay, the State file VMA No.755 of 2010 and the non-official respondents filed VMA 968 o 2010. Both the applications to vacate the interim orders dated 01-04-201 and 07-04-2010 in O.A.No.1988 of 2010 were dismissed by the orde impugned herein. Inter alia the writ petitioners contend that the order is a wholly non speaking order and no reasons are vouchsafed for declining to vacate th interim orders. In the light of the contention, we do not consider necessary to analyse the other contentions of the petitioners. We ar satisfied that the principal allegation, of the order being a non-speakin order, merits acceptance. The order impugned reads as under:- “Heard the counsel for the applicant, Counsel appearing for R-1 t R-5 and the learned G.P. The Respondents have reiterated the stand taken by them in th impugned order. Learned G.P submitted that the Hon’ble High Court permitted th respondents 3 to 5 to make a representation. Accordingly, they mad representation and the same was entertained and the impugned order ha been passed. Therefore, this Tribunal is not entitled to interfere with th said order in view of the fact that writ petition is pending before the Hon’b High Court. On the contrary, the Counsel appearing for the applicant submit that the Hon’ble High Court had directed the respondents to pass order in accordance with the rules and the impugned order is contrary to th rules as there is no provision for posting the applicant who was working i Subordinate office to Directorate. In view of this, I do not find any grounds to vacate the interim orders. Interim order is made absolute. VMAs are dismissed.” The only contribution of the learned Tribunal to the adjudciator process is the sentence “ in view of this, I do not find any grounds to vacat the interim orders”. This sentence is not indicative of the application o mind. Recording of reasons is mandatory. The order of the Tribunal doe not even reflect that the applications to vacate the stay are rejected on th basis of reasons earlier recorded by it while granting interim orders or fo any other reasons. As the order is totally bereft of reasons, it i unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. V.M.A.Nos.755 and 968 of 2010 in O.A.No.1988 of 2010 are remande to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after recordin reasons therefor. The learned Tribunal may consider disposing of th V.M.As expeditiously. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the stag of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 27th JULY 2010. TSNR