The duty to give reasons for impleading a party is a function of due process and justice, and the lack of proper reasoning in the impugned order led to the appeal being allowed.

P.K DEKA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. So far the respondents No. 4 to 22 are concerned, the present appellant as per the direction of this court vide order dated 10.04.2018 served the copy of the memo of appeal on Mr. V. Jamoh, learned Advocate at Itanagar Permanent Bench, Gauhati High Court who represents the present respondents No. 4 to 22 in WP (C) No. 735(AP)/2017 pending before the learned Single Judge, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench and in support of the said contention an affidavit was sworn which is on record. Considering the steps taken by the present appellants this court is satisfied to draw the presumption that service on the respondents No. 4 to 22 are duly served. However, on call none has entered appearance representing the said respondents No. 4 to 22.

2. The present appeal is against the order dated 08.02.2018 passed in I.A. No. 219/2017 in WP (C) No. 735 (AP) /2017 by the learned Single Bench, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench. The present respondents No. 4 to 22 filed an application for their impleadment in the said pending writ petition which was registered as I.A. No. 219/2017. The present appellant, as the petitioner, preferred the writ petition against an order dated 25.10.2017 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seijosa with respect to a plot of land thereby directing the appellant to maintain status quo till the dispute with respect to the land is resolved. Therein, the said respondents No. 4 to 22 preferred the impleadment application alleging that the said land was under their possession and as such they are necessary parties in the writ petition. The present appellant filed affidavit-in-opposition thereby disputing the claim of the respondents No. 4 to 22. The said impleadment application was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order in this writ appeal which was passed on 25.10.2017.

3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the writ petitioner preferred the present appeal challenging the said order dated 25.10.2017 on the grounds mainly that the learned Single Judge passed the order without giving any reason for impleading the said respondents No. 4 to 22.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels. On perusal of the impugned order dated 25.10.2017 it is found that the learned Single Judge without giving any reasons expressing the satisfaction for acceptance of the reasons pleaded by the respondents No. 4 to 22 and without discussing the objections raised by the present appellant simply passed the order thereby allowing the impleadment application of the respondents No. 4 to 22 for securing the ends of justice. It is seen that the learned Single Judge ought to have drawn the satisfaction with respect to the substantive interests of the respondents No. 4 to 22 over the plot of land which is a prime requirement for impleadment of any party to a writ petition or any other proceeding. Moreover, there is a duty cast while disposing of any application there must be reasoning which forms the part of the Principles of Natural Justice. In Flanery v. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd. reported in (2000) 1 All ER 373 it was held as follows:-

"The duty to give reasons "is function of due process and therefore of justice. Its rationale has two principle aspects. The first is that fairness surely requires that the parties especially the losing party should be left in no doubt why they have won or lost. The second is that a requirement to give reasons concentrates the mind and if it is fulfilled the resulting decision is much more likely to be soundly based."

5. The reasons must be recorded and the same should be proper, intelligible and adequate depending upon the circumstances of the case and the quality should be judged by looking to the substance rather than to the form. The appellant filed his written objection against the imple