Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Rashtrapati Khare holding brief of Sri Neeru Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. On 13.1.2017, the matter was heard and the following order was passed;

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Prima facie the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 is unreasoned and non speaking. Prima facie the impugned order indicates failure of the respondent No. 3 to discharge his duty.

Put up on 17.1.2017, on which date the respondent No. 3 shall remain personally present and file his personal affidavit explaining the circumstances and reasons for passing the impugned non speaking order despite specific order dated 16.11.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 54337 of 2016 directing him to consider the complaint of the petitioner alongwith supporting material while deciding the matter of cancellation of his fair price shop agreement of Village Panchayat Akbarpur Itorura, Vikas Khand Haswa, Tehsil and District Fatehpur.”

3. By the impugned order dated 15.12.2016, the fair price shop agreement of respondent No. 5 has been restored observing as under:

^^fodzsrk }kjk izLrqr Li"Vhdj.k dk ijh{k.k xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;kA izLrqr Li"Vhdj.k iw.kZr;k larks"ktud ugha gS] pwWfd fodzsrk fodykax O;fDr gS ,oa mldh ;g izFke =qfV gSA vr% fodzsrk ds izfr ekuoh; n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, 'kklu ds i{k esa :0 5000 ¼ikap gtkj :0½ izfrHkwfr tCr djrs gq, fuyfEcr vuqcU/k i= cgky fd;k tkrk gS o fodzsrk dks funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fu;ekuqlkj mBku@forj.k lqfuf'pr djsA**

4. A personal affidavit of respondent No. 3, namely, Abhinav Ranjan Srivastava, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Fatehpur, has been filed today which is taken on record. The aforesaid, respondent No. 3 is also personally present in this Court and has tendered unconditional apology for the manner in which the impugned order has been passed. Learned standing counsel states that the respondent No. 3 has entered in service about ten months ago and as such due to lack of experience, the mistake occurred in not recording the reasons in the impugned order and therefore, he may be excused.

5. In the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 42 as under:

“42. We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it this Court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court.” (Emphasis supplied by me)

6. In the case of Udhav Das Kewat Ram v. CIT, 1967 (66) ITR 462, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal must consider with due care all material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised before it and the relevant law.

7. An order without valid reasons cannot be susta