Order The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 18th July, 2009 in Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 mainly for the reason that the said order is thoroughly a non-speaking order. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order reads as under:- "3. This area has been subject matter of revision case no. 27/2006 order dt. 20.8.2007 passed by the Court of Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. As such there is no cogent reason to re-open this matter which has been decided earlier, hence this revision application is dismissed." 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the aforesaid reason is no reason in the eye of law. 3. Previously preferred Revision Case No. 27 of 2006 dated 20th August, 2007 also reads as under:- "Heard both the parties and perused the records. The delay in filing the application is condoned. The District Mining Officer, Sahebganj is directed to calculate the up-to-date dues and issue a demand notice to the petitioner, by giving him reasonable time for payment on a definite date for clearing the dues. The petitioner is further directed to submit all papers as demanded by District Mining Officer, Sahebganj. If the petitioner complies with the above direction the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj would pass a speaking order on merit and in accordance with the provisions of law within 90 days from the date of receipt or production of the copy of this order. Revision application stands disposed of." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thus, on previous occasion also, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was directed to pass a speaking order. Except this, nothing was decided against the present petitioner. Thus, previous Revision Application No. 27 of 2006 was basically decided in favour of the petitioner and the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was quashed and set aside and the direction was given to pass a speaking order within ninety days. Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj passed an order. Being aggrieved by this order Revision Application No. 9 of 2009 was preferred. This revision application was disposed of without assigning any reason, worth the name. It has been stated in the second order that there is no cogent reason to re-open the matter, which has been earlier decided. Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj passed an order. Being aggrieved by this order Revision Application No. 9 of 2009 was preferred. This revision application was disposed of without assigning any reason, worth the name. It has been stated in the second order that there is no cogent reason to re-open the matter, which has been earlier decided. It is misfortune for the present petitioner that earlier the matter was decided in favour of the present petitioner. This order cannot be the basis of an impugned order. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a cryptic order has been passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Rahchi, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside and let the matter may be remanded for taking a fresh decision in Revision Case No. 9 of 2009, within stipulated time and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. 5. I have heard learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the resp,ondent-St~te, who has vehemently submitted that the impugned order refers the earlier Revision Application No. 27 of 2006 dated 20th August, 2007 and it has been stated that the District Mining Officer, Sahebganj was directed to calculate the up-to-date dues and issue a demand notice to the petitioner by giving him reasonable time for payment on a definite date for clearing the dues. The petitioner was also directed to submit all papers as demanded by District Mining Officer, Sahebganj. This, if the petitioner is not cooperative in disposal of his application for renewal of lease, there is bound to be dismissal of his application. Nonetheless, it is also fairly submitted by learned Advocate General that let the matter may be remanded to the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi for taking a fresh decision in the Revision Case No. 9 of 2009, within stipulated time and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. The Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 will be again decided by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The earlier officer has now been changed. 6. The Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 will be again decided by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The earlier officer has now been changed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 18th July, 2009 in the Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The petitioner was given mining lease for certain period. Upon completion of the said period, an application was preferred for renewal of the mining lease. The same was not decided in time and, therefore, Revision Application No. 27 of 2006 was preferred and the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi while passing the order dated 20th August, 2007 has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. Sahebgani and it was directed that within ninety dayss a detail speaking order will be passed. The said order is annexed at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. (ii) It appears that, thereafter decision was taken, and the lease was not renewed. Renewal application preferred by petitioner was dismissed. Therefore, a revision application bearing Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 was preferred before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which was decided by him vide order dated 18th July, 2009 and only reason given in the impugned order that there is no cogent reason to re-open the matter because the earlier Revision Case No. 27 of 2006 is already decided vide order dated 20th August, 2007. These are no reasons in the eye of law. Earlier revision application was preferred because, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was not deciding, the renewal application. He was sitting tight upon renewal application. Therefore, in Revision Application No.27 of 2006, a direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to decide an application within ninety days by speaking order. Present Revision Application No. 9 of 2009 is preferred because the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj has dismissed a renewal of lease application. Thus, Revision Application No. 9 of 2009 cannot be dismissed because earlier Hevision Application No. 27 of 2006 was decided. 80th these revision applications are for different purposes. Perhaps revisional authority has not taken any care to read earlier order. Revisional authority ought to have passed speaking order. There is no need to give a thesis to his reasons. Thus, Revision Application No. 9 of 2009 cannot be dismissed because earlier Hevision Application No. 27 of 2006 was decided. 80th these revision applications are for different purposes. Perhaps revisional authority has not taken any care to read earlier order. Revisional authority ought to have passed speaking order. There is no need to give a thesis to his reasons. Summary is an art, but, nothing has been stated worth the name, so the reasons given in the impugned order i.e. in Revision Case No. 27 of 2006 cannot be a basis of an order passed in Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 because in earlier order, direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to pass a speaking order on merit. Earlier order dated 20th August, 2007 has not decided any dispute between the parties. No reasons, at all, were given for deciding any dispute between the parties in the earlier order. On the contrary, earlier order was passed in favour of the present petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was directed to pass an order on merits by speaking order. The Mines Commissioner;'Jh'arkhand, Ranchi ought to have applied his mind that reasons are always required for dismissal of the claim of the petitioner. Reasons are the soul of the order. Thus. a non-speaking order always leads to arbitrariness. Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies of each other. When arbitrariness is present equality is absent and when equality is present arbitrariness is absent. Therefore reasons are always required to be given in the order so that higher forums can know what were the reasons in the mind of the Mines Commissioner Jharkhand. Ranchi while dismissing the revision application preferred by the citizen. It ought to be kept in mind by the high ranking administrative officer that nobody is filing the matter just for nothing. It is not a fun to file a matter under any law. Lot of time is invested and lot of money involved. Whenever, citizen is coming to the Mines Commissioner, he should apply mind that there are bound to be some grievances. As far as possible, the grievances of the citizen ought to be resolved, in accordance with law at their stage by assigning some reasons. Non-speaking orders are adding matters to the High Court. Multifariousness of petitions should have been avoided by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. As far as possible, the grievances of the citizen ought to be resolved, in accordance with law at their stage by assigning some reasons. Non-speaking orders are adding matters to the High Court. Multifariousness of petitions should have been avoided by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order' passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 13th July, 2009 in the Revision Case No. 9 of 2009 and I hereby direct the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide afresh Revision Case No. 9 of 2009, in accordance with law and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 8. The petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of.