in the instant application is accepted.

Keeping in view the aforesaid no objection endorsed by learned counsel for the non-applicant as well as the reasons mentioned in the present application, the same is allowed. Order dated 04.08.2025 passed in the main writ petition, bearing CWP No.19364 of 2023, is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

CWP-19364-2023:

Petition herein is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Briefly, the petitioners challenged the partition proceedings by filing a revision petition (ROR No.142 of 2023) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who, vide order dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-3), issued notice to the respondents and directed that status quo be maintained till further orders. Subsequently, when the matter came up for hearing on 02.08.2023, the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, passed the following order:-

“The case was fixed for hearing today. Counsel for the respondents submits an application for vacation of stay. Argument, partly heard. Stay vacated. Issue notice to the respondents and call for the record from the Lower Courts.

Now, to come up on 27.09.2023 at 3:30 p.m.”

3. It is against the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) is wholly non-speaking as it does not disclose the reasons which prevailed with the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in vacating the stay while keeping the revision petition pending.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Subhash Chand, Superintendent, F.C.R., Haryana, is unable to counter the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) is devoid of reasons.

6. Heard.

7. It is well settled that every order passed by a public authority/quasi judicial authority should be a reasoned order. It is also well settled that reasons are the heart and soul of an order. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-1 Circle and others”, reported as 2009 (Sup) AIR (Supreme Court) 561 has observed as under:-

“10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.

(See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519).

11. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Bree v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.” “Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) p