ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the challenge is made to the order dated 15.12.2010, thereby the application preferred by petitioner under section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is rejected by the Court below. 2. The petitioner filed an application under section 8 of the Act before the Court below. It was prayed that minor Ku. Anupriya Chauhan, age 5 years, is residing under the guardianship of the petitioner. Petitioner is her natural guardian and mother. Her interest is not contrary to minor Ku. Anupriya and petitioner’s husband is Govt. employee . The petitioner intends to sell certain pieces of land which were given by way of gift to Ku. Anupriya. Aforesaid sale of the land, detailed in para 3 of the said application, is necessary for the purpose of getting necessary fund for marriage of Ku. Anupriya. Petitioner’s husband is in transferable Govt. job. Petitioner being a woman is not able to use that land for agriculture purpose nor is able to manage the land, which may result into encroachment of the land. The Court below has rejected the said application by the impugned order. The Court below opined that considering the age of Anupriya (5 years) permission cannot be granted in the interest of Ku. Anupriya. 3. Shri G.P. Chaurasiya, Advocate for the respondent No.1, has supported the petitioner. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, application under section 8 of the Act is pregnant with relevant factual foundation and details. The Court below has given its conclusion in the last paragraph by holding that since Ku. Anupriya is only 5 years of age, permission cannot be granted. However, for this conclusion no reasons are assigned. In other words, it is not clear as to what are the factors which resulted into rejection of the said prayer. 5. This is settled in law that reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, no conclusion can be permitted to stand. It is also noticed that after the rejection of earlier application, some more time has elapsed, this factor also needs consideration. The apex Court in (Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. It is also noticed that after the rejection of earlier application, some more time has elapsed, this factor also needs consideration. The apex Court in (Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :- “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigant’s faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the Judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirements is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 6. In the light of aforesaid, impugned order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to hear the parties again on the said application (Annexure P/2) by taking into account the passage of time and present status and then pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. Impugned order is set aside. Petition is allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.