IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 OF 2008 Central Bank of India. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr.Nissar Gulab Sayyad & others. ... Respondents. H.N.Thakore with Ms.Jyoti Ghat i/b. Thakore Jariwala and Associates for the petitioner. Sachin Chavan for respondent No.1. Sameer S. Tambekar for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 2nd March 2009. DATED: 2nd March 2009. DATED: 2nd March 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard. . Rule, returnable forthwith. . Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 26th July, 2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No.720/2006 in Appeal No.391/2006, whereby and whereunder the application for waiver of deposit is allowed unconditionally. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a serious grievance that the impugned order is passed without giving any reasons. He submits that the opening two paras give factual matrix, whereas subsequent two paras incorporates rival submissions and in last para, in one sentence, the application for waiver of deposit is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate a prima facie case for dismissal of appeal and, consequently, for non-waiver of deposit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 tried to support the impugned order. However, for want of reasons he could not take his submission to the logical end. 5. We do not propose to deal with this matter on merits. However, we find that the impugned order is passed without giving any reasons. The entire issue of waiver has been decided in one sentence. 6. It is needless to mention that the basic rule of law and natural justice require recording of reasons in support of the order. The order has to be self-explanatory and should not keep the higher court guessing for reasons. Reasons provide live link between conclusion and evidence. That vital link is - 3 - the safeguard against the arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. The reason is a manifestation of mind of the adjudicator. It is a tool for judging the validity of the order under challenge. It gives opportunity to the court to see whether or not the adjudicator has proceeded on the relevant material and evidence. 7. In the case of Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606 it was held that "........After all a tribunal which exercises judicial or quasi judicial powers can certainly indicate its mind as to why it acts in a particular way and when important rights of parties of far-reaching consequences to them are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion, without giving a personal hearing when proposals and counter proposals are made and examined, the least that can be expected is that the tribunal shall tell the party why the decision is going against him in all cases where the law gives a further right of appeal". 8. In Swamiji v. Commissioner, H.R.C.E., AIR 1980 Swamiji v. Commissioner, H.R.C.E., AIR 1980 Swamiji v. Commissioner, H.R.C.E., AIR 1980 SC 1, SC 1, SC 1, the Supreme Court noted with approval the legal maxim "cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex", which means reason is the soul of law and when reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law. 9. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC - 4 - 716, the Supreme Court held that reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or the conclusion arrived at. They also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. 10. In the above view of the matter, for want of reasons, the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. We have, therefore, no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 26th July, 2007 and restore Misc.Application No.720/2006 to the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal with direction to decide the same afresh by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All rival contentions are kept open. 11. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)