JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and perused the material on record. 2. Counsel for the parties agreed that this special appeal be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavits specifically in view of order proposed to be passed today by this Court. 3. Writ Petition No. 6596 of 2015 was filed by Lal Chandra Kesarwani and another challenging the order of Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Allahabad dated 12.1.2015 whereunder election set up by appellant were accepted and accordingly the list of office bearers of society had to be registered. According to the writ petitioner the order was without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was a dispute with regards to the election of office bearers which could be examined under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority only. Learned Single Judge has been pleased to pass following interim order in the said petition: “Connect with Writ Petition No. 63525 of 2011. The matter was taken up in the revised list. It has been informed that the mother of Sri Nand Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents has expired today due to this he is unable to argue the matter today, and the prayer has been made for deferring the matter for at least two weeks. Let the matter be put up as fresh on 25.2.2015. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.1.2015 shall remain stayed till 25.2.2015.” 4. The appellant challenges the order on the ground that it contains absolutely no reasons. Counsel for the appellant submitted that for grant of interim order at least three conditions must exure: a) Prima facie case b) balance of convenience in favour of petitioner c) irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated in terms of money. 5. The judicial propriety demands that some reasons for granting interim order must be disclosed therein. 6. Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that appellant was seeking adjournment on personal grounds that is why learned Single Judge found it a fit and proper to grant an interim order till the matter is heard next. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined records. 6. Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that appellant was seeking adjournment on personal grounds that is why learned Single Judge found it a fit and proper to grant an interim order till the matter is heard next. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined records. Reasons are heart beat of every order. An order without reasons cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. We are of the opinion that writ Court must disclose application of mind through reasons recorded while granting an interim order. In absence of reasons the order would be rendered bad. 8. We have been informed that matter is to come up on 16th of March, 2016 before Hon’ble Single Judge for admission/orders afresh. 9. In view of aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by Single Judge. We request the learned Single Judge to consider the matter for admission/orders afresh. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ——————