ORDER 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the application for grant of recognition to the second petitioner-College to impart education by starting D.EI.Ed course vide 222nd Meeting, dated 09/10-05-2012, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The second petitioner made its application through online, for grant of permission for starting D. El. Ed course, to respondent No.2 on 28-09-2011. This application was followed by hard copy application sent on 03-10-2011. On 29-12-2011, respondent No.2 has returned the said application with certain objections. The second petitioner has resubmitted the application after purported compliance with the objections on 17-02-2012. Thereafter, show cause notice, dated 04-04-2012, which the second petitioner claims to have received on 12-04-2012, was issued by respondent No.2 wherein 21 days time was given to the second petitioner, from the date of its issue, for making good the deficiencies. The second petitioner has resubmitted its application along with rectification defects report on 02-05-2012. On 09/10-05-2012, respondent No.2 has rejected the said application. Questioning the said decision, the petitioners filed" the present Writ Petition. 3. At the hearing, Mr. Shreyas Reddy, learned Counsel, representing Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners, advanced the following submissions: (1) A perusal of the impugned decision would show that respondent No.1 was mainly guided by the fact that the application of the second petitioner was received 28 days after the date of issue of show cause notice and that respondent No.2 has completely misconstrued the phrase 'issue' and reckoned the period of 21 days from the date of dispatch of the show cause notice and not from the date of receipt of the notice by the second petitioner. In support of his submission that the phrase 'issue' should be construed as 'served', the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and another v. M/s. Kundan Lal Behari Lal (1) AIR 1976 SC 1150 . (2) That the impugned rejection is purported to be based on totality of information and collective application of mind; that respondent No.2 has failed to give any reasons, whatsoever, with reference to the compliance report filed by the second petitioner to the objections raised by it and that this decision, not being supported by any reasons whatsoever, is non est and liable to be set aside. 4. 4. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. 5. Mr. Ashish Samat, learned Counsel, representing Mr. D. Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for NCTE, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the fact of the second petitioner resubmitting its application beyond 21 days from the date of issue of show cause notice is not the sole ground on which respondent No.2 has rejected the same and that respondent No.2 has applied its mind to the material available on record and the information collected by it while rejecting the same. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference of this Court. 6. A perusal of the impugned decision of respondent No.2 would show that it has taken note of the fact that the second petitioner's application was received 28 days after the date of issue of show cause notice. Even though respondent No.2 has not expressly rejected the said application on the ground that its resubmission was beyond 21 days from the date of issue of showcause notice, the very recording of the factum of receiving of resubmitted application after 28 days would impliedly show that respondent No.2 had borne this fact also in mind while rejecting the same. As noted above, the second petitioner has pleaded that show cause notice, dated 04-04-2012, was received by it on 12-04-2012 and in support thereof, it has filed a copy of postal stamp bearing 12-04-2012 as the date of receipt. Since this plea of the second petitioner is not controverted by the respondents, in the absence of any counter-affidavit, this Court has no option other than accepting the petitioners' plea that show cause notice, dated 04-04-2012, was received by the second petitioner on 12-04-2012 only and if that date is taken into consideration, resubmission of the application by the second petitioner is within 21 days as stipulated in the show cause notice. Now, the question is, the meaning that has to be ascribed to the word 'issue'. In The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and another (1st supra), a similar issue arose in the context of the provisions of Section 18 (2A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, wherein the Apex Court while considering the words 'issued' held that it should be understood as 'served'. In The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and another (1st supra), a similar issue arose in the context of the provisions of Section 18 (2A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, wherein the Apex Court while considering the words 'issued' held that it should be understood as 'served'. To support its judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon the ratio in Banarsi Debi and another v. The Income Tax Officer, District IV, Calcutta and others (2) AIR 1964 SC 1742 wherein it was held that the expressions 'issued' and 'served' are used as inter-changeable terms and in the legislative practice of our country, they are sometimes used to convey the same idea. The Supreme Court has, accordingly, interpreted the word 'issued' in the principal sense of 'served' and not in the another sense of 'sent'. I have undertaken this exercise to dispel any apprehension in the mind of respondent No.2 that the second petitioner has resubmitted its application beyond 21 days of the date of issue of show cause notice. 7. With regard to the observation of respondent No.2, that it has rejected the second petitioner's application with reference to the totality of the information collected and based on a collective application of mind, as rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they do not constitute proper reasons. Duty to give reasons constitutes an important facet of principles of natural justice and absence of reasons vitiates the decision. (See Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. Union of India (3) AIR 1966 SC 671 , G. Valli Kumari v. Andhra Education Society and others (4) (2010) 2 SCC 497 and CCT v. Shukla & Bros (5) (2010) 4 SCC 785 8. The statement in a vague manner that respondent No.2 has considered the totality of information collected and applied its collective mind does not satisfy the requirement of reasons. Such a ground based on which an order of rejection of permission is based can never pass the Courts' muster. The petitioner is entitled to know the precise reasons on which respondent No.2 has come to the conclusion that it is not entitled to star the educational institution. Lack of reasons, it is trite, leads to arbitrary decisions. An administrative authority cannot be permitted to deny a citizen of his valuable rights based on such cryptic and laconic. orders without being supported by any reasons. 9. Lack of reasons, it is trite, leads to arbitrary decisions. An administrative authority cannot be permitted to deny a citizen of his valuable rights based on such cryptic and laconic. orders without being supported by any reasons. 9. While, ordinarily, this Court would have insisted the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 18 of the A.P.N.C.T.E. Act, having regard to the fact that the order passed by respondent No.2 is not supported by any reasons and, therefore, the same is non est, this Court is inclined to entertain the Writ Petition instead of relegating the petitioner to file an appeal. 10. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned decision of respondent No.2 is set aside. The case is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration of the second petitioner's application on merits by directing that respondent No.2 shall treat resubmission of the said application as being within time. It shall pass a detailed order with reference to the objections contained in the show cause notice and the reply submitted by the second petitioner, and give reasons, in the event it proposes to reject the second petitioner's application. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. As a sequel, WPMP.No.22708 of 2012, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.