In The Case Of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait v. Commissioner Of Incometax, Madras, Air 1959 Sc 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court Held In Para 42 Asunder

Court No. - 7Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 590 of 2018Petitioner :- Imtiaz AhmadRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu PratapCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 1.Heard Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2.This revision has been filed praying for the following relief: "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashingthe orders dated 3.3.2015 and appellate authority dated 12.1.2018passed by District Magistrate Basti." 3.Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.1.2018 in Appeal No. -C2015170000131 (Imtiaz Ahmad) under Sections 12 and 15 of U.P.Entertainment and Betting Tax Act 1979, shows that the DivisionalCommissioner, Basti, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner has notrecorded even a single reason for rejection of the submissions of thepetitioner. An abrupt conclusion has been drawn without giving any reason toreject the appeal. 4. In the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 42 asunder : "42. We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact findingTribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after dueconsideration of the evidence before it this court will not interfere. It isnecessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee musthave been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have givenits finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were thequestions which arose for determination, what was the evidence proand contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findingsreached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reachedby the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations ormatters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to beexplained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity ofdoing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findingson suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on noevidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevantevidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjecturesor surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, eventhough on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by thiscourt." (Emphasis supplied by me) 5. In the case of Udhav Das Kewat Ram Vs. CIT 1967 (66) ITR 462,Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal must consider with due care allmaterial facts and record its findings on all contentions raised before it andthe relevant law. 6. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons isthe rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court heldin the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. HowrahGanatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 asunder : (Emphasis supplied by me) 5. In the case of Udhav Das Kewat Ram Vs. CIT 1967 (66) ITR 462,Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal must consider with due care allmaterial facts and record its findings on all contentions raised before it andthe relevant law. 6. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons isthe rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court heldin the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. HowrahGanatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 asunder : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative butalso judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus,while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for itsconclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court torecord reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an orderand exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose itsreasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted uponas one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - deliverysystem, to make known that there had been proper and dueapplication of mind to the issue before the Court and also as anessential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving ofreasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judiciousdisposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication toknow about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also thefact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide Stateof Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State ofRajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573]. 32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity inan order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasonssubstitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders theorder indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subjectto further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs.State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. Stateof Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd.Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; Stateof Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026;U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram PhalVs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs.Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of HimachalPradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasonsrecorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decisionmaking. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why hisapplication has been rejected. (Emphasis supplied by me) 7. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence orconsideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to beunsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433(S.C.)(para 8) held as under : justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasonsrecorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decisionmaking. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why hisapplication has been rejected. (Emphasis supplied by me) 7. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence orconsideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to beunsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433(S.C.)(para 8) held as under : "8. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the facts at hand, we areof the opinion that there is some merit in the submission of learned counselfor the appellant that while dealing with an appeal under Section 130 of theAct, the High Court should have examined each question formulated in theappeal with reference to the material taken into consideration by theTribunal in support of its finding thereon and given its reasons for holdingthat question is not a substantial question of law. It needs to beemphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief isentitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer,particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of furtherappeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons whichweighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedyof appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can besubjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs.Dhaniram Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beatof every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observedthus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system;reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matterbefore court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why thedecision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of naturaljustice is spelling out reasons for the order made;......." (Emphasis supplied by me) 8. In the case of CCT Vs. Shukla & Bros. (2010) 4 SCC 785 ( paras 20,24 to 27) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “20. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pipe Arts India (P) Ltd. V.Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare (2008)6 Mah LJ 280, wherein the Bench wasconcerned with an appeal against an order, where prayer for an interim relief wasrejected without stating any reasons in a writ petition challenging the order of theLabour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order waschallenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judgewhile rejecting the prayer and this has seriously prejudiced the interest of justice.After a detailed discussion on the subject, the Court held: (Mah LJ pp.283-87, paras8,10 & 12-22) "8. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it isalways desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actionswhether administrative or quasi-judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authoritiesconcerned to act fairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. Theseconcepts would require that any order, particularly, the order which can be subject-matter of judicial review, is reasoned one. Even in the case of ChabungbambohalSingh v. Union of India 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 83, the Court held as under: (SCC pp.85-86, para 8) '8. …His assessment was, however, recorded as "very good" whereas qua theappellant it had been stated “unfit”. As the appellant was being superseded by oneof his juniors, we do not think if it was enough on the part of the SelectionCommittee to have merely stated “unfit”, and then to recommend the name of oneof his juniors. No reason for unfitness, is reflected in the proceedings, as againstwhat earlier Selection Committees had done to which reference has already beenmade." '8. …His assessment was, however, recorded as "very good" whereas qua theappellant it had been stated “unfit”. As the appellant was being superseded by oneof his juniors, we do not think if it was enough on the part of the SelectionCommittee to have merely stated “unfit”, and then to recommend the name of oneof his juniors. No reason for unfitness, is reflected in the proceedings, as againstwhat earlier Selection Committees had done to which reference has already beenmade." * * * 10. In Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh (1987) 2 SCC 222, accepting the pleathat absence of examination of reasons by the High Court on the basis of which thetrial Court discarded prosecution evidence and recorded the finding of an acquittalin favour of all the accused was not appropriate, the Supreme Court held that theorder should record reasons. Recording of proper reasons would be essential,so that the Appellate Court would have advantage of considering theconsidered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which had weighed withthe trial Court. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489, while noticing thejurisdictional distinction between Article 142 and Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the Supreme Court stated that powers of the Supreme Court under Article142 are much wider and the Supreme Court would pass orders to do completejustice. The Supreme Court further reiterated the principle with approval that theHigh Court has the jurisdiction to dismiss petitions or criminal revisions in limine orgrant leave asked for by the petitioner but for adequate reasons which should berecorded in the order. The High Court may not pass cryptic order in relation toregularisation of service of the respondents in view of certain directions passed bythe Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Absence ofreasoning did not find favour with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court alsostated the principle that powers of the High Court were circumscribed by limitationsdiscussed and declared by judicial decision and it cannot transgress the limits onthe basis of whims or subjective opinion varying from Judge to Judge. 13. In Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 242, the Supreme Courtwhile dealing with the cases under the Labour Laws and Employees' ProvidentFunds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 observed that even when thepetition under Article 226 is dismissed in limini, it is expected of the High Court topass a speaking order, may be briefly. (emphasis supplied) 14. Consistent with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the aforereferredcases, in State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors.(2001) 10 SCC 607, the Supreme Courtheld as under:(SCC p.608, para 4) '4.The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to fileappeal against acquittal. ...The manner in which appeal against acquittal has beendealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarityin an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have setforth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order. The absence of reasons hasrendered the High Court order not sustainable." 15. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj KishoreJha v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT 2003 Supp(2) SC 354. 16. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. DhaniramLuhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that thereasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Courtshould record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under:(SDC p. 572, para 8) '8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C) 15. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj KishoreJha v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT 2003 Supp(2) SC 354. 16. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. DhaniramLuhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that thereasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Courtshould record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under:(SDC p. 572, para 8) '8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." InAlexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure togive reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links betweenthe mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decisionor conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Theemphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutableface of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for theCourts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicialreview in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is anindispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient toindicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationaleis that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons forthe order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of thesphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicialperformance." 17. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another very recent judgmentdelivered on 22-2-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008)15SSC 711 stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without thesame it becomes lifeless.' 18. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings.Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know thereasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to thelis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know theconsidered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is thereasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may besubject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not onlydesirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for theCourt to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however,brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance asabsence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders isimpermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at leastat the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful andmeaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vestedwith discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitablyand in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicialdiscretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, canonly be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before thehigher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso factoindicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justiceof the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, “The problem with the Courts:Black-robed Bureaucracy Or Collegiality Under Challenge” 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782(1983), observed as under:- 'My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires somestatement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphsexplaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by theCourt that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.' 19. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause toplead and a right to challenge the order if it is adverse to him. Opinion of theCourt alone can explain the cause which led to passing of the final order.Whether an argument was rejected validly or otherwise, reasoning of theorder alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of the Courtand to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a legitimateexpectation on the part of the litigant. Another facet of providing reasoning is togive it a value of precedent which can help in reduction of frivolous litigation. PaulD. Carrington, Daniel J Meador and Maurice Rosenburg, Justice on Appeal 10(West 1976), observed as under:- 'When reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can haveassurance that the correcting process is working. Announcing reasons can alsoprovide public understanding of how the numerous decisions of the system areintegrated. In a busy Court, the reasons are an essential demonstration that the Court did in fact fix its mind on the case at hand. An unreasoned decision hasvery little claim to acceptance by the defeated party, and is difficult orimpossible to accept as an act reflecting systematic application of legalprinciples. Moreover, the necessity of stating reasons not infrequently changes theresults by forcing the judges to come to grips with nettlesome facts or issues whichtheir normal instincts would otherwise cause them to avoid.' 20. The reasoning in the opinion of the Court, thus, can effectively be analysed orscrutinized by the Appellate Court. The reasons indicated by the Court could beaccepted by the Appellate Court without presuming what weighed with the Courtwhile coming to the impugned decision. The cause of expeditious and effectivedisposal would be furthered by such an approach. A right of appeal could becreated by a special statute or under the provisions of the Code governing theprocedure. In either of them, absence of reasoning may have the effect of negatingthe purpose or right of appeal and, thus, may not achieve the ends of justice. 21. It will be useful to refer words of Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court ofQueensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on 13-9-2002 in relation to JudgmentWriting. Describing that some judgment could be complex, in distinction to routinejudgments, where one requires deeper thoughts, and the other could be disposedof easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking aboutpurpose of the judgment, he said, 'The first matter to consider is the purpose of thejudgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written: - (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to providereasons for an appeal Court to consider.' (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to providereasons for an appeal Court to consider.' 22. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is thefoundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), the Court went to the extent of observing that'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice'. Reasons are really linchpin toadministration of justice. They are the link between the mind of the decision-takerand the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential.Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by thehigher court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render theorder open to judicial chastism. The consistent judicial opinion is that every orderdetermining rights of the parties in a Court of law ought not to be recorded withoutsupportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the highercourts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law andimposing self- discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well-established norms. The contention raised before us that absence of reasoning inthe impugned order would render the order liable to be set aside, particularly, inface of the fact that the learned Judge found merit in the writ petition and issuedrule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We have already noticed that orders even atinterlocutory stages may not be as detailed as judgments but should be supportedby reason howsoever briefly stated. Absence of reasoning is impermissible injudicial pronouncement. It cannot be disputed that the order in questionsubstantially affect the rights of the parties. There is an award in favour of theworkmen and the management had prayed for stay of the operation of the award. The Court has to consider such a plea keeping in view the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, where such a prayer is neither impermissible norimproper. The contentions raised by the parties in support of their respective claimsare expected to be dealt with by reasoned orders. We are not intentionallyexpressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions alleged to have been raisedby respective parties before the learned single Judge. Suffice it to note that theimpugned order is silent in this regard. According to the learned Counsel appearingfor the appellant, various contentions were raised in support of the reliefs claimedbut all apparently, have found no favour with the learned Judge and that too for noreasons, as is demonstrated from the order impugned in the present appeals." 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, thelaw itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significanceof reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice aswell as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law ofprecedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, thelaw itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significanceof reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice aswell as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law ofprecedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions oflaw raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provideits own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at thevery threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concisethey may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can beweighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place andworking. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should notonly appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented.Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and wouldprovide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensationsystem. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified dutyimposed upon the Courts to record reasons. 26.Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualifiedobligation upon the Courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutoryprovision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiringrecording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and standsunequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that, the courtsand tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In fact, Order 14Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, theCourt should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviouslyshould be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be thebasis for writing a decree of the Court. 27. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of judge-made law, theconcept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basicrule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law.Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is thefoundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120(NIRC), there are apt observations in this regard to say"failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are the real live linksto the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There isa rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasonedjudgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate thereasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure thatsuch reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court.Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object statedhereinabove.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 9. The appellate authority is under the statutory obligation to consider with due care every fact for and against the assessee and to record its finding ina manner which would clearly indicate as to whether the facts on which theorder was passed have been established? Whether the facts so establishedafford sufficient ground for taking action? and whether assessment isexcessive, adequate or inadequate? Absence of the findings to disclosereasons in an appellate order in the manner indicated above renders theorder to be indefensible/unsustainable.10.Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. In the absence ofreasons the order becomes lifeless. Non recording of reasons renders theorder to be violative of principles of natural justice. Reasons ensures 9. The appellate authority is under the statutory obligation to consider with due care every fact for and against the assessee and to record its finding ina manner which would clearly indicate as to whether the facts on which theorder was passed have been established? Whether the facts so establishedafford sufficient ground for taking action? and whether assessment isexcessive, adequate or inadequate? Absence of the findings to disclosereasons in an appellate order in the manner indicated above renders theorder to be indefensible/unsustainable.10.Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. In the absence ofreasons the order becomes lifeless. Non recording of reasons renders theorder to be violative of principles of natural justice. Reasons ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. It enables litigant to knowreasons for acceptance or rejection of his prayer. It is statutory requirementof natural justice Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. It islink between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question.Thus failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. 11.Aforenoted observations have been made merely for the purpose thatthe concerned authority should properly discharge the statutory functionentrusted to him by law. 12.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 12.1.2018passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Basti can not be sustained and ishereby quashed. Appeal is restored to its original number. Matter is remittedback to the Divisional Commissioner, Basti, with the direction to decide theappeal in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order, afteraffording opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously, preferably withineight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 13.Writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded as aforesaid.Order Date :- 5.4.2018/vkg