Judgment U P. Singh, J. This writ application is directed against an order dated 25th January, 1982 passed by the Commissioner of South Chotanagpur Division Ranchi, (Annexur-5) affirming the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Singhbhum at Chaibasa, dated 30.11.1981 passed ex-parte in Kolhan Money Suit No. 9 of 1981 (Annexure-3). By these impugned orders the petitioner-company has been restrained from receiving payment of their bills submitted to the Metal & Mineral Trading Corporation of India Limited, Nalda, Orissa as also to M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur. They have been further restrained from receiving payment of their future bills which were to be submitted to those two Concerns. The facts and these: 2. An application for issue of temporary injunction was filed in the court of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum by respondent no. 3 in Kolhan Money Suit No.9 of 1981. Respondent no. 3 M/s. Rungta Sons Private Limited was the plaintiff. A suit for recovery of Rs.13 lacs and old had been filed against the defendant-petitioners, on account of the balance of amount of advance made to the petitioners from time to time for the price of manganese supplied by the petitioner-company to the respondent no. 3 together with interest. It was alleged that the petitioners applied mineral ore to the Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited, Nalda as also to the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur and their bills were pending for payment. It was claimed that these bills were the only properties of the petitioners where the decree, if passed, could be satisfied and that they had no other property except these bills. 3. On the application filed by respondent no. 3 for issuing temporary injunction the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, (respondent no. 2), passed the following orders- “Heard, Registrar, Admit. Issue notice, Heard the learned lawyer for the plaintiff. The defendants are hereby restrained from receiving payments of their bills submitted to the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation Ltd, Nalda and Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, and the future bills which they may submit to them. Issue notice to the defendants to show as to why the above injunctions be made absolute fixing 30.12.1981. The defendants are hereby restrained from receiving payments of their bills submitted to the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation Ltd, Nalda and Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, and the future bills which they may submit to them. Issue notice to the defendants to show as to why the above injunctions be made absolute fixing 30.12.1981. Send a copy of this order to each of Minerals & Metal Corporation of India Ltd., Nalda and Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, as prayed by the plaintiffs at their cost." 4. On 5.12.1981, suddenly, the petitioner-company were informed by the TISCO and M.M.T.C. that the payment of their pending bills as well as the current bills to the tune of Rs. 13 lacks and odd would not be realised because of the said order of temporary injunction passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner-company then learnt that respondent no. 3 had filed the said Kothan Money Suit No.9 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 13 lacs and odd from the petitioner-company on account of the balance of amount of advance made to the petitioner from time to time for the price of manganese supplied by the petitioner-company to respondent no. 3. 5. Under the terms of contract with TISCO and M.M.T.C. the petitioner-company was supplying maganese ore to those two concerns. The average amount which the petitioner-company received per month was nearly 8 lacs. 6. Against the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner the petitioner-company filed an application before the Commissioner, under Rule 31 of the Wilkinson Rules and contended that the interim order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had serious repercussions bringing the business of the petitioner-company at a stand-still and irreparable injuries were caused to the petitioner-company. It was further urged that the petitioner-company had long terms contract with the TISCO and MMTC being a joint sector and a Central Government Undertaking respectively The failure to supply maganese ore to those two concerns will hamper the production of Ferro maganese or TISCO and Bokaro Steel Limited and also will apply under order rule 3 of the Code the Civil Procedure Code, of Raurkela Steel plant causing great national loss and the petitioner company may be sued for breach of contract by these two concerns. It was asserted that the suit as such was not maintainable under the Wilkinson Rules and the order of the Addl. It was asserted that the suit as such was not maintainable under the Wilkinson Rules and the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. There is no provision under the said Rules for grant of temporary injunction/permanent injunction. As against the aforesaid contentions respondent no. 3 contended that every court has inherent power to issue injunction and Wilkinson Rules do not bar issue of injunction. 7. The Commissioner held that: "In absence of any such bar to issue of injunction under Wilkinson's Rules, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has acted within his jurisdiction in exercising his inherent power in directing the stoppage of the payments of the bills." 8. Challenging the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. S.B. Sinha strenuously urged that under the Wilkinson's Rules, there is no provision for grant of injunction. Although the Code of Civil Procedure has no application but the principle and the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Under or 39 Rule 3 of the Coda of Civil Procedure the Court has to record reasons and, if no reasons are assigned, the order will be void and, consequently, the impugned orders contained in Annexures 3 and 6 will have to be set aside. 9. It may be noticed that a proviso has been added to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is proposed to grant an injunction without any notice of the application to the opposite party the court shall have to record reasons for the opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. This is a mandatory provision. Similar question has been noticed and decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kasuganti Anantarao V. Kasunganti Amma and others. It was held: "The provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 read in the light of the proviso to it makes two things distinct. Whenever interim injunction is granted without notice the following are to be fulfilled: (i) the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. (2) the court shall record the reasons that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay." These twin ingredients are mandatory in nature and non-compliance will vitiate and render the order void. 10. Now bearing in mind the above the impugned orders may be noticed. It reads: "Heard Register, Admit, Issue notice. (2) the court shall record the reasons that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay." These twin ingredients are mandatory in nature and non-compliance will vitiate and render the order void. 10. Now bearing in mind the above the impugned orders may be noticed. It reads: "Heard Register, Admit, Issue notice. Heard the learned lawyer for the plaintiff. The defendants are hereby restrained from receiving payment of their bills submitted to the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd. Nalda, and Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur and the future bills which they may submit to them." 11. It is apparent that not a single reason has been assigned in the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The reason or reasons will have to be patent, as insisted by the legal mandate, there being absolutely no scope for latent and inferential reason. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from the infirmity of want of any reason Similar infirmity is found in the order of the commissioner, when it was stated that. "In view of the assertion that these bills were only properties of M/s Orissa Manganese during the jurisdiction of the court, there were good reasons for restraining them from receiving payment pending final hearing." The Commissioner has not recorded whether the petitioner company were removing the properties in order to defeat the purpose of injunction or that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. The liability was yet to be determined after giving opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. 12. Under the proviso added to order 39, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving a notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. No evidence was led to show that the petitioner-company was about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property from the local limits. It must be held that the impugned orders contained in Annexures-3 and 6 did not assign any reasons, which was mandatory for the court to record and, therefore, the orders are void. The quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. It must be held that the impugned orders contained in Annexures-3 and 6 did not assign any reasons, which was mandatory for the court to record and, therefore, the orders are void. The quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. Recording of reasons in support of the decision by a Quasi Judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on the ground of policy or expediency. 13. The finding of the Commissioner that every court of law has got inherent power cannot be accepted. A power to grant Injunction is a statutory power and the said power cannot be exercised by statutory tribunals in absence of specific provision made in that regard by the legislature. The Courts constituted under the Wilkin man son's Rules are statutory tribunals and they must confine their jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. The Courts constituted under the Wilkinson's Rule can not exercise any jurisdiction which is not specifically vested in it nor can it exercise any power for the purpose of grant to injunction which power is admittedly not specifically conferred upon the said statutory tribunals. 14. It may be noticed that the Commissioner having entertained the application of the petitioner company under Rule 13 of the Wilkinson's Rules, and considered the case on merits, the same cannot be defeated on the ground that an appeal under Rule 14 should have been files. It cannot be said that extra ordinary circumstances were not existing to entertain the said application under Rule 31. In the facts and circumstances of this case the existence of extra ordinary circumstances have been stated by the petitioner-company in his application, After the interim injunction was passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, suddenly on 5.12.1981, the petitioner company was informed by TISCO and MMTC that their pending bills as well as the current bills to the tune of Rs. 13 lacs would not be realised because of the temporary injunction passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. It may be noticed that neither TISCO nor MMTS were party to the said order. Under the terms of contract the petitioner company was bound to supply manganese of to those two concerns. The average amount which the petitioner-company used to receive every month was about 8 lacs. Deputy Commissioner. It may be noticed that neither TISCO nor MMTS were party to the said order. Under the terms of contract the petitioner company was bound to supply manganese of to those two concerns. The average amount which the petitioner-company used to receive every month was about 8 lacs. Even future bills which the petitioner-company could submit to those two concerns were stayed by the interim order. The order, therefore, jeopardised the entire business of the petitioner company causing irreparable loss. Such being the situation, it could not be saip that extra ordinary circumstances for entertaining the application under Rule 31 by the Commissioner was not existing The contention of respondent no. 3 must therefore, be rejected. 15. In this view, the orders contained in annexures-3 & 6 are set-aside and the application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.