Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.- Heard Sri R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.R. Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri V.K. Srivastava, advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 6. 2. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 5. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that by way of an agreement dated 07.01.2000, a Fair Price Shop has been granted in favour of the petitioner for the village Nagaria, Post office Subeha Sharifabad, Block Haidergarh, District Barabanki under public distribution system. Further a complaint was made in respect to operation and distribution of the essential items from the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry conducted in the matter in question and on the basis of same, order dated 22.11.2004 passed by which petitioner's agreement suspended and charges were leveled against him, he was required to submit his explanation that why his agreement should not be cancelled. 4. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner aggrieved by the suspension order dated 22.11.2004, filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the same was allowed with the direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the matter arising out of the suspension order dated 22.11.2004, within a period of six months. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply on 21.01.2005 in response to the charges which were leveled against him. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, on merit and by way of non-speaking order relying on the enquiry report dated 09.11.2009 the copy of which was not given to him, the opposite party no. 2, Deputy Collector, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki cancelled the agreement of the petitioner for running of the Fair Price Shop by order dated 14.03.2005. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority by way of appeal(numbered as 165/Barabanki of 2004), dismissed by order dated 18.08.2005 hence, the present writ petition. 5. 2, Deputy Collector, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki cancelled the agreement of the petitioner for running of the Fair Price Shop by order dated 14.03.2005. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority by way of appeal(numbered as 165/Barabanki of 2004), dismissed by order dated 18.08.2005 hence, the present writ petition. 5. Sri R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order under challenge submits that the enquiry report which was the sole basis for taking the impugned decision against the petitioner had not been supplied to him, as such the action on the part of opposite party thereby cancelling the petitioner's agreement for running the Fair Price Shop and dismissing the appeal is an action which are totally in contra-version to the principle of natural justice, further the impugned order dated 14.03.2005 is a non-speaking order and against the principle of natural justice. 6.He further submitted that the order passed in appeal is also non-speaking none of the grounds which were taken by the petitioner in appeal are not considered and decided on merit by opposite party no. 1. Accordingly, the orders under challenge are arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice, thus liable to be set aside. 7.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents in order to support the orders under challenge in the writ petition, submitted that the same are perfectly valid and passed after taking into consideration the irregularities committed by the petitioner mentioned in the enquiry report dated 22.11.2009 in respect to the operation of the Fair Price Shop by him, so the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, by virtue of an agreement dated 07.01.2000, the Fair Price Shop was allotted in favour of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System, further in respect to the operation of the same, alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner so an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the same, the Shop in question suspended by the order dated 22.11.2004 and charges were also leveled therein, petitioner submitted his reply on 21.01.2005. Thereafter, the agreement for running of the Fair Price Shop was cancelled by order dated 14.03.2005 passed by opposite party no. 2 and appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 18.08.2005. 10. Thereafter, the agreement for running of the Fair Price Shop was cancelled by order dated 14.03.2005 passed by opposite party no. 2 and appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 18.08.2005. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 14.03.2005, it is clear that the Licensing Authority while passing the said order has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 21.01.2005 in respect to the charges leveled on him by the order dated 22.11.2004 and also the copy of the report was not given to the petitioner, so the submission of the counsel for the petitioner finds force that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Supply Inspector which was not supplied to him as a result of which the petitioner was denied the proper opportunity of defence and it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice. 11. In the case of Rajpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(16) LCD 891, it has been held by this Court that non-furnishing of the inspection report of the Supply Inspector which was relied under for cancellation of the the license, amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, hence, the order of cancellation as well as the appellate order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. In the case of Dori Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 1121, it has been held that the order cancelling the licence passed without the petitioner being provided the copy of the resolution of the village Panchayat as well as the enquiry report, if any and without being afforded opportunity of submitting explanation and hearing amounts to gross violation of principle of natural justice and hence, it deserves to be quashed. 13. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Samitis Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001(19) LCD 513, has held that the order of cancellation of licence of Dealer in Kerosene oil which has been passed without supplying the copy of the Enquiry report and without affording opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 14. Further from perusal of the orders dated 14.03.2005 and 14.03.2005 passed by opposite party no. 14. Further from perusal of the orders dated 14.03.2005 and 14.03.2005 passed by opposite party no. 2 and it is crystal clear that no reason whatsoever have been given by the said opposite parties while orders under challenge, rather the same are cryptic order, devoid of reasons and without appreciation of claim of the petitioner so they are unsustainable and arbitrary in nature. Because the law is settled that a decision arrived at by any authority without giving any reason is a totally arbitrary decision. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by t he Hon'ble Apex Court that giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Reasons introduce clarity in an order and indicate orders, howsoever brief may be, in order to indicate an application of mind. The respondent ought to have set forth their reasons in their orders, howsoever brief may be in order to indicate an application of their mind, all the more, when their orders are amenable to further avenue of challenge. 15. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "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". 16. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be 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 later 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 worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 17. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 17. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2005(99) Rd 46 held that one of the salutary requirement 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." 18. In view of the said facts, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure no. 1) and 14.03.2005(Annexure no. 2) passed by opposite party party nos. 1 & 2, are set aside, the matter is remanded back to the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Deputy Collector, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki to decide the same after giving the copy of the enquiry report and right of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously say within a period of eight weeks from today. 20. During the intervening period, the petitioner's shop will remain suspend. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.