1 W.P.No.6264/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6264 OF 2011. Nagorao S/o Mahada Sakhare, died through his L.Rs. 1. Shivaji S/o Hanmant Gayake, Age 28 years, Occ.Agril., 2. Shalubai W/op Parmeshwar Gayake, Age 30 years, Occ.Agril/Household, Both R/o Waghala, Tq.Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad. 3. Mohan @ Bhaiyalal S/o Bansilal Pardeshi, Age major, Occ.Business, 4. Madanlal S/o Bansilal Pardeshi, Age major, Occ.Business, 5. Kishan S/o Bansilal Pardeshi, Age major, Occ.Business, All R/o Chatrapati Nagar, Ring Road, Ambejogai, 2 W.P.No.6264/11 Dist. Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.M.Chate, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.A.Ambad, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 20.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The dipsute between the parties pertains to the mutation entries. The present petitioners have preferred Revision before the Commissioner, Aurangabad. Aggrieved by the order passed by the lower authority. The petitioners also filed an application for stay of the judgment of the subordinate authority. The Addl.Commissioner, rejected the said application for stay and kept the Revision for hearing. 3 W.P.No.6264/11 Aggrieved by the rejection of application for stay, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Mr.Chate, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is non-speaking order. No reasons are given for rejecting the said application for stay. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Sundardas S/o Gajanan Nagwade Vs. Union of India and another" reported 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 225. 5. Mr.Ambad, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that the Revision has been fixed for hearing today. The record is also called. As the Additional Commissioner was satisfied that no case is made out, the application for stay was rightly rejected. 6. When a quasi judicial authority is dealing with the matter and is passing an order, the same has to be by a speaking order giving the reasons. The reasons depict the application of 4 W.P.No.6264/11 mind on the part of the authority. In the present case, no reasons are stated. 7. The Revision itself is fixed for hearing. The record has also been called. The learned counsel submits that no changes have been made in a mutation entries. 8. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the revenue record and the mutation entries shall not be changed pending the Revision before the Additional Commissioner. The Revision shall be decided by the Addl. Commissioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. The mutation entries would be subject to the final order passed by the Addl. Commissioner in Revision. 9. Rule accordingly made absolute. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp6264.11 5 W.P.No.6264/11