JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondents 3 and 4-appellants, aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57084 of 2009, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The order impugned is interim in nature. It reads as follows : “Till next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits), Kanpur Region, Kanpur shall remain stayed and the consequential elections held on 3.9.2009 shall be kept in abeyance.” 2. Mr. H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that in view of the inter se finding between the parties in Special Appeal No. 1486 of 2008, the writ petition itself was not maintainable and, hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed any order. 3. However, Mr. M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, appearing on behalf of writ petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 herein, submits that the writ petition is maintainable and the learned Single Judge did not err in passing the interim order. 4. Expression of any opinion by us at this stage shall prejudice either party and, therefore, we are not inclined to go into the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties in this regard. 5. Mr. Mishra, then, submits that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has not indicated any reason. 6. Mr. Shekhar, in answer thereto, submits that the reasons do exist, but mere its non-mentioning in the impugned order shall not vitiate the same. 7. Ordinarily, this Court in special appeal does not interfere with an interim order, but it is not a rule of law. 8. True it is that no detailed reason is required to be given while granting interim relief. However, what weighs with the learned Judge while granting the interim relief needs to be briefly indicated. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Union of India and another v. Rama Dental College and another, 2006 (10) ADJ 7, in which it has been held as follows : “2. We find that the impugned order is a very short one, and does not contain any reasons. It is essential that some reasons, however basic or however short, be given even while passing an interim order. We find that the impugned order is a very short one, and does not contain any reasons. It is essential that some reasons, however basic or however short, be given even while passing an interim order. This prevents the order from being criticised as arbitrary, and also gives the Court of appeal essential information as to what was uppermost in the mind of the first Court in the first place. An order becomes legally infirm, it is supposed to contain reasons and yet it does not. On the basis of this legal infirmity, the impugned order under appeal is set aside. Although we have heard parties at some length, yet we have not entered into the merits of the case in any final way, and are not in a position to make any pronouncement in that regard.” 9. Yet, another decision in which this question fell for consideration is the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 2007 (3) ADJ 119 , in which on a review of earlier decision on the issue, it was held as follows : “5. We, therefore, in the absence of any reason in the order for grant of such interim relief are not inclined to accept the contention of Sri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondents. Since the order under appeal does not contain any reason whatsoever, in view of the aforesaid exposition of law the order under appeal cannot sustain and therefore, set aside. However, since the matter is fixed on 8.1.2007 i.e. Monday next before the Hon’ble Single Judge, we hope that the Hon’ble Single Judge will hear the application for interim relief again and thereafter pass the order, or the Hon’ble Single Judge may decide the writ petition itself on merit subject to other business of the Court. With the above observations this special appeal stands disposed of.” 10. Further, this question pointedly came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Tripathi v. Rang Bahadur and others, 2008(6) ADJ 741 (DB) : 2008(4) ESC 2225 (All)(DB), in which it has been held as follows : “22. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in passing the order staying the effect of the motion no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in passing the order staying the effect of the motion no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that unless the motion was not signed by more than half of the members, no meeting could have been convened by the District Magistrate. Learned Single Judge while passing order has not recorded any reason for such grant. This Court as well as the Apex Court time and again has laid down that in granting an interim order reasons are necessary to be recorded [See Union of Indian v. Rama Dental College, 2006 (10) ADJ 7.]” 11. In view of the decisions of this Court, referred to above, there is no escape from the conclusion that while passing an interim order, the Court is required to indicate the reason, which weighed with it while granting the interim relief, the reason may not be exhaustive and may be basic or short, but it must appear in the face of the order. 12. When tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court, we find that the learned Single Judge while passing the interim order, as reproduced above, has not recorded any reason, whatsoever, at all. 13. In that view of the matter, we are left with no option than to set aside the order impugned. 14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. As we have set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid ground alone, nothing shall prevent the learned Judge from passing fresh order bearing in mind the observations aforesaid. 16. The petition shall be listed on 4th January, 2010 as directed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside with the observation aforesaid. ————