JUDGMENT : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy. J. The applicant in O.A.No.160 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by denial of interim relief to him pending the said O.A. Mr. P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 had no legislative competence to insert Note No.2 to Rule-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules, 2002 (Telangana Adaptation) Order, 2016 as any addition to the Rules, other than adoption of the existing Rules, could be done by the plenary legislation and not through the delegated legislation. He has placed before us the interlocutory order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.937 of 2016 and PIL (SR).No.2029 of 2016 in support of the above-noted legal proposition. At this stage, we do not propose to examine the request of the petitioner for grant of interim relief for the reason that all his pleas for granting such relief ought to be considered by the Tribunal by passing a speaking order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal was not inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioner pending the Original Application and instead, it observed that any future promotions to be made in pursuance of the impugned (amended) rule shall be subject to the final result of the Original Application. It is implied from the purport of this order that the Tribunal declined the interim relief sought by the petitioner pending the O.A. It is an inviolable legal principle that whenever a quasi judicial forum passes an order denying the relief, whether interim or final, the order must be supported by reasons as they constitute the heart and soul of an order. (See: M.P.Industries Limited v. Union of India ( AIR 1966 SC 671 ), S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 1984 ), Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668 ), State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh (2004) 1 SCC 547 ). (See: M.P.Industries Limited v. Union of India ( AIR 1966 SC 671 ), S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 1984 ), Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668 ), State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh (2004) 1 SCC 547 ). In G.Vallikumari V. Andhra Education Society (2010) 2 SCC 497 ), the Supreme Court held that the requirement of giving reasons by every quasi judicial or even administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing orders adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned. The reasoned order serves the following purposes: (i) It eliminates the subjectivity; (ii) It enables the party suffering the order to know the reasons for the forum to pass such order; and (iii) It facilitates the superior court to appreciate the reasons and decide the case in an effective manner. As no reasons have been mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing a speaking order, after hearing both parties, on the interlocutory relief claimed by the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.25920 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.