ORDER Building permission granted on 15.4.2011 by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 for undertaking construction on the property bearing CTS No.2398 of Hukkeri, was questioned by the petitioner before respondent-1, by filing a revision petition, under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. An ad interim order of stay was passed and the same was extended. However, by an order dated 28.06.12, (extracted infra) without assigning any reason, was vacated. The said order was assailed in W.P.65460/12 and the impugned order therein was stayed on 19.10.12. Respondent No.1 having dismissed the said revision petition on 5.6.2014, W.P.1075686/14 was filed. 2. Smt. P.G. Naik, learned advocate, contended that the impugned orders being bereft of reasons and being vitiated are liable to be quashed. She submitted that the first respondent has arrived at the conclusions without any discussion and reasons having been indicated. She further submitted that there being arbitrariness in the decision making process, interference is called for. 3. Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned AGA and Sri. Sachin S. Magadum, learned advocate for respondent-3, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders and sought dismissal of these writ petitions. 4. Perused the writ record and considered the rival contentions. 5. Order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the 1st respondent, questioned in W.P.No.65460/12 being cryptic, reads thus : 6. Relevant portion of the order dated 5.6.2014, passed by respondent1, questioned in W.P.107586/14, reads as follows: It is apparent that the order is unreasoned. 7. Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at, since they substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The impugned orders, extracted supra, make clear that there is only subjectivity and there is complete lack of objectivity. 8. Respondent-1 having been conferred with the jurisdiction under Section 322 of the Act, is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, submissions of the learned Advocates and formulate the necessary point for consideration and discuss the material on record and decide the matter by giving reasons. It is very easy to decide the case in the manner, noticed supra. When higher forum is approached by an aggrieved person, such forum would not know, whether the authority concerned has applied its mind to the case. It is very easy to decide the case in the manner, noticed supra. When higher forum is approached by an aggrieved person, such forum would not know, whether the authority concerned has applied its mind to the case. Since the impugned orders are not speaking orders and having been arrived at on subjective satisfaction, cannot be upheld, in as much as, failure to give reasons shows clear arbitrariness and would also amount to the denial of justice. 9. Since the impugned orders are vitiated, there is no other option than to allow these writ petitions and remand the matter to respondent-1, to decide the same in accordance with law. In the result, both these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Interim order passed on 19.10.12 in W.P.No.65460/12 is made absolute. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order in Revision Petition No.104/2011-12, on the file of the respondent-1, till the case is decided by the said authority. Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to appear before respondent-1, on 29.1.2015 at 3.00 P.M. and receive further orders. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the case by keeping in view the observations made supra and in accordance with law, with expedition and on or before 31.3.2015. All other contention of both parties are left open. No costs.