The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions, particularly when vacating interim orders, is essential to uphold principles of natural justice.

ORDER

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.03.2021, whereby the District Collector, Jalore-revisional authoirty has vacated the ad-interim order granted by him on 23.12.2020.

2. The petitioners herein had preferred a Revision Petition No.33/2020 under Section 97(2) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 laying challenge to the Patta dated 28.01.1990, granted in favour of the respondents.

3. After hearing the submissions of the petitioners, the revisional authority namely District Collector, Jalore passed an ad-interim order on 23.12.2020 requiring the respondents to maintain status quo in relation to possession and record of the subject land.

4. On 17.03.2021 the revisional authority however, vacated the aforementioned ad-interim order.

5. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the District Collector is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that no sooner were the notices served than the respondents appeared before the revisional authority and prayed for vacation of the ad-interim order dated 23.12.2020.

6. Learned counsel argued that neither any reply was filed nor was any document submitted but the revisional authority acceded to such request even without noticing the contention of the rival parties and assigning any reasons.

7. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the order of the revisional authority is perfectly valid on merit inasmuch as the petitioners had laid challenge to a Patta granted in the year 1990 by way of a revision petition, which came to be filed after lapse of more than 30 years.

8. It was also argued by Mr. Mehta that the petitioners have no prima facie case and thus respondents' rights arising from Patta granted in their favour could not be taken away.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that, the way and manner in which the District Collector has vacated the ad-interim order is unsustainable.

10. Indisputably, no reply or documents were filed by the respondents. The District Collector seems to have proceeded to vacate the ad-interim order simply on the basis of oral submissions made by the respondents.

11. In the opinion of this Court, the judicial authorities and quasi-judicial authorities are required to give at least brief reasons while passing interim or ad-interim injunction. And, when it comes to vacation of an interim order, the requirement of recording reasons becomes all the more necessary.

12. However in the impugned order, no reasons have been given by the learned revisional authority. If the District Collector was of the view that the ad-interim order granted by him required modification/vacation, it was incumbent upon him to record rival contentions and give reasons for vacating the ad-interim order.

13. In the present factual backdrop especially when the respondents had not even filed their response, what prevailed in the mind of District Collector for setting aside the ad-interim order granted by him, is anybody's guess.

14. Needless to observe that, the District Collector, being revisional authority-entrusted with the duty to determine civil and proprietary rights of the citizens in relation to cancellation of Patta, is required to pass orders which are in conformity with the principles of natural justice and which are in sync with the settled canons of procedural law, which includes recording of reasons.

15. The order dated 17.3.2021 impugned in the present writ petition palpably fails to withstand the aforesaid test, for which it is hereby quashed and set aside.

16. The District Collector is directed to decide the stay application within a period of one month from today. The respondents may file their written statement and documents as deemed necessary.

17. Needless to observe that this Court has not pronounced upon merits or demerits of the case of