IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.50 of 2000. Date of decision : 02.07.2008. Dharmi Devi & Others ...Petitioners Versus Additional Director Consolidation ..Respondents. & Another Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.R.Kant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Navlesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’). The order in revision is extremely terse and brief and does not spell out the reasons for its decision. It is undisputed before me that respondent No.1 was exercising statutory powers under 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 Section 54 of the Act. It is by now well settled that a statutory/quasi-judicial/administrative Authority has to give reasons for the decision and cannot indulge in the luxury of passing a non- speaking order. The reasons need not be elaborate but none-the-less must fairly indicate the precise ground raised and a reason for coming to a conclusion that the submissions made on the ground urged - arises or does not arise for determination or is not borne out from the record. Merely expressing an opinion does not satisfy this requirement. It is a cardinal principle of Natural Justice that reasons for the decision should be recorded. They should, as held by the Supreme Court, reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Only in this way an opinion or the decision recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. (See: Union of India vs. M.L. Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87). In S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990)4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court was categoric in directing that reasons must be recorded for the reasons:- “(i) such decisions are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 as well as supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227; (ii) it guarantees consideration by the adjudicating authority; (iii) it introduces clarity 3 in the decisions, and (iv) it minimizes chances of arbitrariness and ensures fairness in decision-making process.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has cited a number of decisions in support of the order passed by respondent No.1. He submits that the reasons can be curlled out from the record and that there is no merit in the petition. I have not dealt with the case on merits. It will be open to the parties to make their respective contentions before respondent No.1. This petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-2 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation is quashed and set aside. The following directions are issued:- (1) The parties shall appear either personally or through their counsel before respondent No.1 on 28th July, 2008; (2) Respondent No.1 shall re-hear the revision petition under Section 54 of the Act, as prayed for by the petitioners herein and shall dispose it of not later than 31st December, 2008. (3) No costs. July 2, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.