Quasi-judicial authorities must record detailed reasons for decisions, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary action.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for caveator/opposite party no. 4.

2. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, on being asked, learned counsel for caveator/opposite party no. 4 says that he would not file the counter affidavit and he would argue the case on merits. Considering the same, this Court proceeds to decide the present petition on merits at admission stage.

3. Instant petition has been filed with following main prayer:

"A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 as well as order dated 18.08.2023 passed by opposite party No.1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Shravasti, and opposite party No.2 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shravasti respectively, contained of as Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

4. By the order dated 18.08.2023, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Shravasti rejected the objection of the petitioner dated 10.08.2023, which was filed with regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and posted the appeal for final disposal on 25.08.2023. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein-under:

5. Challenging the order dated 18.08.2023, the petitioner preferred the revision registered as Case No. 0313/2023 under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2023. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein-under:

6. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner says that order dated 18.08.2023 passed by opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Shravasti is a non-speaking order. Elaborating this aspect, he says that a perusal of the order reflects that Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Shravasti has not considered the explanation to condone the delay of 8 years in filing the appeal given by the appellant/opposite party no. 4 namely Vipul Tondon in paras 10 and 11 of the memo of appeal and the moreover the averments made in these paras are completely vague and misconceived, as such, this order is liable to be interfered only on this aspect of the case. He further submitted that it is settled principle that even administrative authorities are required to record the reasons being the heartbeat of the order.

7. He further submitted that the revisional authority while considering the revision challenging the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by opposite party no.2 failed to take note of the fact that opposite party no.2 while passing the final order dated 18.08.2023 failed to record reasons and in fact the revisional authority declined to interfere in the order dated 18.08.2023 only on the basis of order dated 28.02.2023 whereby the Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shravasti, on an application preferred for transfer of case, directed the appellate authority (opposite party no. 2) to decide the appeal within a period of two months. Direction to decide the appeal does not mean that appeal should be decided without following the manner prescribed and without recording the reasons while passing the orders. In the aforesaid background of the case, interference of this Court is required in the order dated 19.102023. Prayer is to allow the petition.

8. Opposing the present petition, Shri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for caveator/opposite party no. 4 says that it is a settled principle of law that matter should be heard on merits and doo