JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and D. K. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in all the three appeals. 2. The order under appeal proceeds on a short legal proposition, that an administrative order having civil consequences was required to be reasoned. 3. Reasons have been held to be the essence of an order, a control on arbitrariness lending transparency to the decision making process. It gives an insight into the mind of authority of the grounds on which the order came to be passed. 4. Reason form an integral part of the principles of natural justice. An order based on reasons enables judicial review by facilitating a decision by the court whether it was a proper and just order. 5. It is trite law that an order has to be decided on the recitals contained in the order and the respondents can not be permitted to build up a case in the counter-affidavit as to what they intended to say. 6. The impugned order proceeds on the premise of an error in the decision making process when the order of the Chairman was unreasoned and non-speaking. Recitals in the order sheet of the court are considered sacrosanct. If a litigant is aggrieved by a recital in the order his remedy lies in preferring an application for correction of error before the same court first. 7. The impugned order specifically records the concession made on behalf of the appellants that it had been their practice to pass unreasoned orders of the present nature and that they shall be more careful in future. 8. The appeals are wholly frivolous. We were inclined to impose heavy costs but have refrained from doing so. The appeals are dismissed.