Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in and by his Lr.No.SET/T/AE2/D6/F.HIGL/D963/11-12, dated 02.03.2012, and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to give consent to the petitioner's Sugar Mill, situated at Karaipoondi Village, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District to draw electricity supply from its own co-generating unit to the staff quarters of the petitioner's Sugar Mill. 2. Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The impugned order declined the request of the petitioner to grant the relief of extension of LT supply from the petitioner's co-generation to the Staff Quarters. This rejection is by way of a non-speaking order, in spite of no objection given by the Highways Department by order dated 29.7.2011. The order does not contain reasons and it is not a speaking order as to why the request is declined. 4. It is well established principle in law that Administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record reasons for its decision. In S.N.Mukherjee v. - Union of India reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 35, 38 and 39 as follows:- "35.) Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." "38.) The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case." "39. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision." 5. In view of the above reason the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent Superintending Engineer is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the no objection given by the Highways Department and pass a speaking order on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.