JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.11.2009 by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake). Petitioner was directed to appear before him on 16.11.2009 at 11.00 A.M. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on 16.11.2009. The Regional Transport Authority cancelled the permit bearing No. 193/Reg./Stg./08 in its meeting held on 15.2.2010. The decision to this effect was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 on 22.2.2010. 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood has strenuously argued that the decision dated 15.2.2010 is not a speaking nor informed. He then argued that the reply and statement of the petitioner have not been taken into consideration on 15.2.2010. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the decision dated 15.2.2010. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been issued permit No. 193/Reg./Stg/08. He has been issued show cause notice why the permit be not cancelled under section 86 of the Act for over loading of the bus, which met with an accident on 6.11.2009 at 10.30 A.M. near Guler Haripur. Petitioner, as noticed above, has filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 16.11.2009. Statement of the petitioner was also recorded on 16.11.2009, as is evident from Annexure R-1 dated 15.2.2010. A bare perusal of Annexure R-1 shows non-application of mind. The reply filed by the petitioner and his statement ought to have been considered by the Regional Transport Authority before the decision was taken to cancel the permit. The necessity of issuing notice is to enable the person to explain his position. It is also the requirement under section 86 of the Act that the holder of the permit has to be given an opportunity to explain his position and thereafter the holder has to be informed of reasons for the action taken in writing. The Regional Transport Authority has not followed the mandatory provisions of section 86 of the Act in letter and spirit. Order dated 15.2.2010, which has led to issuance of Annexure P-6 is laconic. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences and it was necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to record detailed reasons after taking into consideration the reply furnished by the permit holder. Order dated 15.2.2010, which has led to issuance of Annexure P-6 is laconic. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences and it was necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to record detailed reasons after taking into consideration the reply furnished by the permit holder. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 have held that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. Their Lordships have further held that the explanation given by the party must be considered. Their Lordships have held as under: “42. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 46. The emphasis on recording reason 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 of the authority before the 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 words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 56. 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 words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 56. The explanation furnished by the appellant for not holding the meeting and acceptance of tender by the council itself and not by the appellant, has not been considered at all. No reasoning has been given by the Statutory Authority for reaching the conclusions. We fail to understand as on what basis such a cryptic order imposing such a severe punishment can be sustained in the eyes of law. 57. The High Court has also erred in not dealing with any of the issues raised by the appellant while furnishing his explanation rather relied upon the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Minister. There is nothing in the judgment of the High Court wherein the grievance of the appellant has been considered or any reasoning has been given to uphold the findings recorded by the Statutory Authority imposing such a severe punishment.” 7. Accordingly, in view of the findings and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-1 dated 15.2.2010 and Annexure P-6 dated 22.2.2010 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the matter afresh in view of observations made hereinabove, within a period of three months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.