Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Despite time being granted no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents.

In such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of on the basis of averments made in the writ petition itself.

2. Petitioner before this Court claims to be resident of village Khubullah Chak, Gram Panchayat Saddopatti, Block Thekna, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh. He was earlier elected as Village Pradhan of the village in the year 1987.

3. In respect of the election of the Gram Pradhan which are scheduled to take place in 2010, voter list was prepared in 2009 which did not contain the name of the petitioner. Petitioner alongwith such other persons whose names were not so included made an application for inclusion of their names under Rule 9 read with Rule 12 of U.P. Panchayat Raj) Registration of Electors) Rules 1994 before Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. The Officer concerned without considering the objections of the petitioner published the final electoral list which did not contain the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal under Rule 21-A of the Rules 1994 before the District Electoral Registration Officer (Panchayat)/District Magistrate on 15.2.2010. This appeal has been rejected under the impugned order dated 22.5.2010.

4. The order is being challenged on the ground that it has been passed on the basis of report obtained from the same Officer, who had finalised the Electoral College without considering the objections of the petitioner resulting in filing of the appeal and further that the report of the Officer was never brought to the notice of the petitioner/appellant nor he was afforded any opportunity to contradict the facts noticed therein. It is therefore stated that impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.

5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2. I am of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority in the facts of the case is legal not justified. From a reading of the order itsef, it is apparently clear that on presentation of the appeal, report from the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer was called for and on the report submitted by the said Officer vis-a-vis the various paragraphs of the appeal, the Appellate Authority has proceeded to hold that the appeal has no merits and is accordingly being rejected. The order is bad on two grounds:

(a) the comments submitted by the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer should have been brought to the notice of the petitioner and he should have been afforded an opportunity to meet the facts stated therein.

(b) the point-wise reply submitted by the Officer could not have been the basis for passing the impugned order inasmuch as it is not supported by any reasons. It is settled that reasons are links between facts and the findings recorded, in absence of reasons, the conclusion arrived at under the impugned order to the effect that appeal has no merit cannot be legally sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others; (2003) 11 SCC 519, has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Again in State of Uttranchal and another v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, 2008 (4) ALJ 226; in paragraph 9 it has been held that reasons are an indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the part of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India; AIR 1990 SC 1984, has held that reasons are necessary links between the facts and the findings recorded. Orders, which visit a party with evil consequences, must be supported by reasons. In absence of reasons, the order cannot be permitted to stand.

6. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The appeal is restored