1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ petition NO. 6714/2009 Sindfana Matsya Vyavasaik Sahakari Sangh Ltd.Majalgaon and another. ...Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. ... Shri V.D. Salunke Advocate Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Advocate Shri M.V. Nagargoje for respondent no.4 to 9. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. Date : 17-11-2009 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 31-08-2009 passed by the Hon’ble State Minister of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Milk and Fisheries Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - respondent no. 1 in revision petition no. 24/2008. The revision petition filed by the present respondents no. 4 to 9 came to be allowed. 2 3. The respondents No. 4 to 9 were elected as members of Managing committee of petitioner no. 1 Sindfana Matsya Vyavasaik Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Majalgaon. The proceeding u/s 78 of the Mharashra Co-operative Societies Act (for short hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was initiated by respondent no.3. An order u/s 78 of the Act came to be passed against said respondents. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before respondent no.2 and same is dismissed. Further, revision was filed by present respondent nos. 4 to 9 and the said revision is allowed. 4. Heard Shri Salunke the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Nagaroje the learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 4 to 9 and learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3. Though Shri Salunke and Shri Nagargoje the learned counsels have made various submissions on the merits of the subject matter, I do not find it necessary to go into those submissions, Since I find that the impugned order has to be set aside on the short ground that it does not contain any reasons as to why revision has been allowed. 5. It is settled law that the judicial or quasi judicial order must be supported with reasons. Recording of the reasons in the judicial or quasi judicial order is one of the important facts of the principles of natural justice. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Hon’ble Minister- respondent no.1 only recorded submissions made by the rival parties and in one line has allowed the revision by observing that “after taking into consideration the submissions on behalf of appellants and respondents, I pass the following order”. After that, the Hon’ble Minister has 3 passed the operative order allowing the revision. The importance of recording reasons has been time and again emphasised by Apex court. The reasons are live link between the material for consideration before the authority and the conclusion arrived at by it. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that an order without reasons is without heart-bit thereby making it lifeless. The reasons are held to be necessary so that, party against whom order is passed is aware about the factor which weighed with the authority in passing order. The reasons are also necessary so that superior court can exercise powers of judicial review more effectively. 6. I have already observed herein above that there are no reasons even for the names sake. In that view of the matter, impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 for considering revision petition filed by respondents no. 4 to 9 afresh, in accordance with the law. The respondent no. 1 is directed to dispose the revision as early as possible and in any way within three months from today. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] tsk/wp6714.09