vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6933 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.6933 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.6933 OF 2006 Vithal Hari Sathe ... Petitioner V/s. Narayan M. Date & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Kanetkar i/b G.S. Godbole for Petitioners Mr.S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent Nos.9 and 12 Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondent Nos.16 to 30 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 8, 2008 OCTOBER 8, 2008 OCTOBER 8, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer allowing the Respondent Nos.16 to 30 to be added as parties to the proceedings before him. The application filed by Respondent Nos.16 to 30 was vehemently opposed by the petitioners herein and in fact to that extent Respondent Nos.2,9 and 12 also supported the contention of the petitioner that Respondent Nos.16 to 30 should not be added as parties to the proceedings. However, the SDO has passed the order on 21.7.2006 on the Roznama which reads thus: "Appl. is absent. Appl. has filed WA on 11/11/05. Resp. filed WA today in case no.4/06 The case No. 405/05 are similar in nature. Adv. R.L. Dhapate wants to appear Third party in the matter. He is allowed to file his written argument today or till 28/7/06. If any of the party wants to add any document or file any argument record. They are allowed till : 2 : 26/7/06." 2. In my opinion, the order does not consider the arguments or the contentions of either party to the application. No reasons have been given by the SDO for allowing the application filed by Respondent Nos.16 to 30. It is trite that the authority must give some reasons when it either accepts or rejects the application as the order is subject to judicial review. There can be no effective judicial review of such an order if no reasons at all are recorded. Therefore, in my opinion, the order must be set aside. Besides this, the SDO has not considered the contention of the petitioners that such an application itself is not maintainable before him. 3. The order dated 21.7.2006 is set aside. The SDO will consider the application filed on 14.7.2006 by the Respondent Nos.16 to 30. The SDO will also consider the submissions on behalf of the petitioners regarding the maintainability of such an application. The SDO will pass a reasoned order either allowing or rejecting the application. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 5. Needless to say that the SDO will hear all the : 3 : parties in respect of this application.