BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the ex. Ruler of sandur has sought judicial review of the administrative order dated 19-5-1982 under annexure-p and for quashing the same on the ground that it is unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the government. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to refrain from applying in regard to the sandur temples described in annexure-a, the Provisions of the Madras hindu religious and charitable endowments Act, 1951 and to restrain them from applying the said Provisions in a manner inconsistent with the merger agreement with the government of India read with collateral letter dated 1-4-1949 and further for a declaration that the petitioner in his capacity as a hereditary trustee is under no obligation to pay any contribution to the state government and to bind the respondents to the terms of the merger agreement and the collateral letter dated 1-4-1949. ( 2 ) A substantial question of law has been raised in this writ petition and the question is whether the said act is applicable to the sandur temples in sandur area which was originally a part of the erstwhile Madras state. In essence, the contentions of the petitioner are two fold : (1) Section 103 (a) of the act saves all decisions and arrangements made by the government of Madras from the effect of the act if they are consistent with the Provisions of the act. (2) Section 103 (b) clearly indicate that any arrangement made earlier of decision taken earlier which is prior to the 1951 act and which was inconsistent with the Provisions of the said Act, the same should be brought in confirmity with the Provisions of the act within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the act after due notice to the affected party. ( 3 ) WHEN this matter came up for consideration by way of appeal preferred by the petitioner before the government of Karnataka, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the hereditary trustee of kumaraswamy temple, sandur, bellary district, the order under Annexure-B came to be passed. It is this order which is assailed in this writ petition. ( 3 ) WHEN this matter came up for consideration by way of appeal preferred by the petitioner before the government of Karnataka, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the hereditary trustee of kumaraswamy temple, sandur, bellary district, the order under Annexure-B came to be passed. It is this order which is assailed in this writ petition. ( 4 ) IT is necessary to reproduce the order which is biief and cryptic and the order reads thus :"after careful consideration of all the aspects of the case government are pleased to order that : 1. The audit fee should be waived. 2. Contribution as proposed should be collected retrospectively in the following manner; a. 50% of Rs. 16,065/- to be collected in 10 equal annual instalments, this amount along with the current year's contribution should be deducted from the annual maintenance grant of Rs. 36,000/- given by the government. B. The other 50% of the contribution viz. Rs. 8,032-50 should be collected by deducting from the final tasdik allowance determined for these temples as per the sandur inam abolition act 1977. 2. The stay order issued in government letter No. Rd 134 mld 77 dated 26-10-1977 is hereby vacated. " ( 5 ) AS regards the questions of law raised by the petitioner before the government of Karnataka regarding which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention, the memorandum of appeal is set out in precise terms and exhaustively bringing out several specific points in issue for consideration. However when reference is made to the order passed by the state government under annexure-p, all that is discern able is manifested in the following brief passage :"the contention off the counsel that the Provisions of the Madras hindu religious and charitable endowments act 1951 are not applicable to the aforesaid temples, was not accepted. The request for making the applicability of Section 76 of the said act prospectively was also not accepted. "manifest in the finding given by the government of Karnataka on crucial questions of law is not only non-application of mind but also failure to assign reasons in support of the same. The extracted passage fully justifies the conclusion that it is not a speaking order and the order passed does not show application of mind impervious to specific contentions which were urged before the government of Karnataka. The extracted passage fully justifies the conclusion that it is not a speaking order and the order passed does not show application of mind impervious to specific contentions which were urged before the government of Karnataka. A silent order reflects that no reasons were assigned because the appellate authority had no reasons to give. Non- existence of reasons in support of a finding certainly calls for interference by this court. An administrative order is required to be well reasoned and further indicative of adherence to fair administrative procedure instead of arbitrariness or lack of exercise of statutory discretion however discretionary the power that is vested in the state government looking into the entire order under annexure-p, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for intervention by this court by judicial review of the administrative order which is impugned in this case. The impugned order is unsustainable. The writ petition is allowed and the order under annexure-p dated 19th may 1982 is quashed. The case is remitted back to the government of Karnataka for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. An expeditious disposal of the matter is what is required in the circumstances of the case. ( 6 ) PENDING disposal of the appeal by the state government, it is hereby directed that the respondents shall refrain from applying the Provisions of the Madras hindu religious 8 charitable Act, 1951 to the sandur temples and also restrained from applying them in a manner which is inconsistent with the merger agreement with the government of India and the collateral letter dated 1-4*1949. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .