IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6592 of 2008 Between: Kammari Rajeshwar(Died). his legal representative Smt.Kammari Lakshmi, W/o. Late Kammari Rajeshwar, R/o.Padgal Village,Valipur Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad,Nizamabad District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad,Nizamabad District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Valipor Mandal,Nizamabad District. 4 Marupedda lasumbai, W/o.Narasaiah, R/o.Padgal Village, Valipor Mandal,Nizamabad District. 5 Pasham Vanitha, W/o.Mahesh, R/o.Padgal Village, Valipor Mandal,Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF Certiorari calling for records pertains tothe order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings.No.E1/3113/07, dated 07.12.2007 and set aside the same and consequentially restore the orders of the2nd respondent in Appeal.No.A2/4423/05, dated 07-05-2007 in the interest of justice and equity and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 6592 of 2008 Oral order: Assailing the order dated 07.12.2007, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, allowing the revision petition filed by the unofficial 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The reason part of the impugned order reads as follows: After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and respondent (2) and perusal of the records, I order to implement the order of the Tahsildar. Revision petition is allowed. The Tahsildar, Vailpoor is requested to take consequential action as ordered by this Court. From a reading of the above, it is clear that the order is very cryptic and is bereft of any reasons. Giving of reasons in support of a decision or order passed by an authority, be it administrative/judicial/quasi judicial, was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Jai Prakash Singh[1], as follows: Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can known why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Since the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, is bereft of any reasons and lacks application of mind to the facts of the case appearing in the case before him, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly admitted that impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted to the 1st respondent, for consideration afresh. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration and disposal afresh, and for passing a reasoned order after hearing the parties to the lis. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 19th June, 2008 KSR [1] AIR 2007 SC 1363