Anil Kumar, J.;- Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of present case are to the effect that petitioner has been granted licence of D.B.B.L. Gun having licence No. 605 by the competent authority in the year, 1999. On 04.04.2009, the Licencing Authority issued a show-cause-notice to the petitioner to submit his reply why his arm licence should not be cancelled, submitted his reply on 04.05.2009, thereafter on 10.12.2009, the District Magistrate, Gonda/Licencing Authority cancelled the Arms licence of petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal (registered as appeal no. 234/158) under Section 18 of Arms Act, before the appellate authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2010, hence present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 4. After heard learned counsel for parties and going through the record, it transpires that appellate order passed in Appeal No. 234/158 is non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned while rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant-petitioner. 5. Needless to mention herein that it is settled proposition of law 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 the 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. 6. 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 as under : "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". 7. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed as under : "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". 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. For the foregoing reasons, order dated 23.06.2010 passed by appellate authority is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, order dated 23.06.2010 passed by appellate authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, is set aside. Matter is remanded back to appellate authority to decide afresh in accordance with law by way of speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks' from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 11. With the above observation, writ petition is allowed.