JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This is second round litigation between the parties. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 1462 of 2014 wherein the petitioner had challenged the de-listing orders passed by the respondents. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20. 8. 2014 on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26620 of 2014 and the same came to be disposed of on 13. 10. 2014 in the following terms: "We see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall take recourse to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks. If the appeal is filed within the said time, the Appellate Authority is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and not later than within six months thereafter. " 3. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure P-14). However, the same was rejected vide order dated 17. 3. 2015 (for short impugned order) which reads thus: "Registered post with A/D No. EL/6. 5. 1/BLDC/Pyramid 17th March, 2015. M/s Pyramid Electronics, Plot No. 36, Sector-5, Parwanoo 173220. Distt. Solan (H. P. ) Fax No. 01792-235571. Sub: Appeal of M/s Pyramid Electronics, Parwanoo. Ref: Your Appeal No. Nil of 2014. With reference to your appeal as referred above, decision of the appellate authority is as under:- I am of the view that appeal of M/s Pyramid Electronics, Solan does not have any merit and hence, the appeal is disposed off without giving any relief to the affected party i. e. M/s Pyramid Electronics, Solan and the order of PS & EMU directorate, issued vide Director/PE&Metro/PS&EMU letter No. EL/6. 5. 1/BLDC dtd. 13. 05. 2013 is considered in order as per laid down procedure". This is for your information please. Sd/- (R. A. Jamali) Director/TL-AC System Design For Director General (PS & EMU)" 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order would disclose that no reasons for rejection have been recorded therein. It is more than settled that purpose of disclosure of reasons is that the people must have confidence in the orders passed by the authorities be it administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. A bare perusal of the impugned order would disclose that no reasons for rejection have been recorded therein. It is more than settled that purpose of disclosure of reasons is that the people must have confidence in the orders passed by the authorities be it administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. Unless reasons are disclosed, the people would not come to know whether the authority has applied its mind or not. Asserting of reasons otherwise minimizes the chances of arbitrariness, hence it is an essential requirement of law and rule that some reasons, at least, in brief, must be disclosed in the order irrespective of whether it is original, appellate or revisional. It is otherwise, cardinal principle that reason is heartbeat of an order and an order without reasoning is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. The authority deciding the appeal is not expected to write a detailed judgment, nevertheless brief reasons for the decision has to be indicated inasmuch as it is an order affecting the rights of the parties and must therefore be supported by reasons. The order has to be reflective of due cogitation and requisite rumination. It must reflect application of mind, consideration of facts in proper perspective and appropriate ratiocination. The reasons ascribed may not be lengthy, but they should be cogent, germane and reflective. It is to be borne in mind, to quote from Wharton''s Law Lexicon: "The very life of law, for when the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases, because reason is the foundation of all our laws. " 6. The necessity for giving reasons and making the order a speaking one has travelled all along to be a necessary ingredient in a justice delivery system. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must be a speaking one. 7. In Daya Ram vs. Raghunath , 2007 11 SCC 241 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. " Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 7. In Daya Ram vs. Raghunath , 2007 11 SCC 241 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. " Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. " 8. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others , 2009 4 SCC 240 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that "whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons. " 9. Towards the impressing need to inform reasons for a decision and the manner in which they are to be informed, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has succinctly summarized the legal position in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others , 2010 9 SCC 496, in the following terms:- "(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. (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 life blood 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 litigants'' 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. (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. (See David Shapiro,1987 100 HLR 731 -37 in Defence of Judicial Candor (Harvard Law Review)). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (See David Shapiro,1987 100 HLR 731 -37 in Defence of Judicial Candor (Harvard Law Review)). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain,1994 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford,2001 EWCA(Civ) 405, (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (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". 10. Even otherwise, it is settled law that non-consideration of relevant material renders an order perverse. A finding is said to be perverse when the same is not available or supported by evidence brought on record or the same are against law and suffer from vice of procedural irregularities. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as arbitrary. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 17th March, 2015 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No. 1 for want of reasons cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set-aside. The appellate authority is directed to reconsider the appeal (Annexure P-14) within a period of four weeks and thereafter decide the same by passing a detailed reasoned order. 12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.