ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17.12.2019 whereby the fair price shop of the petitioner is suspended and consequently attached and also the appellate order dated 03.03.2020 whereby petitioner's appeal is rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three fold submissions. It is urged that the petitioner received a show cause notice wherein six allegations were made against him. Pursuant to show-cause notice dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 07.12.2019. Along with reply, he filed affidavit and other relevant documents. By impugned order dated 17.12.19 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner's shop is suspended and consequently it is attached with other shop. Shri Lala submits that no reasons are assigned in this order as to why reply submitted on 07.12.19 did not suit the learned Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Prithvipur. He criticized the order dated 17.12.19 and urged that a new reason which was not subject-matter of show-cause notice became the reason for suspending the shop which runs contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with suspension order dated 17.12.19 preferred a detailed appeal and took specific ground regarding adding of a new ground in the order of suspension but the Appellate Authority did not deal with the appeal independently. Indeed, he obtained comments of S.D.O. and accepted those comments as gospel truth. The learned Collector failed to see that the entire action was taken on the basis of some ex parte enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's suspension order and appellate order being non reasoned run contrary to principles of natural justice. 5. Prayer is opposed by Shri Yadav, learned Additional A.G. He submits that the suspension order dated 17.12.19 is an order like suspension order in a service matter. The petitioner will get full opportunity when action will be taken for cancellation of a shop. At this stage, no interference is warranted. He supported both the impugned orders dated 17.12.19 and 03.03.20. 6. No other point is pressed by the parties. 7. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 8. The petitioner will get full opportunity when action will be taken for cancellation of a shop. At this stage, no interference is warranted. He supported both the impugned orders dated 17.12.19 and 03.03.20. 6. No other point is pressed by the parties. 7. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 8. During the course of hearing, on a specific query from the Bench, Shri Yadav fairly admitted that the relevant control order makes it obligatory for the department to issue show-cause notice before issuance of suspension order. If that be so, the suspension of a fair price shop cannot be equated with suspension in a service matter. As per M.P.C.S. (CCA.) Rules, 1966 before placing an employee under suspension, no opportunity of hearing or notice is required to be issued. 9. In my opinion, once statute/control order makes it obligatory to issue a notice and invite response, it is obligatory on the part of authority to deal with the points and defence taken in the reply while passing an order regarding suspension etc. 10. The impugned order dated 17.12.19 shows that the authority directly reached to a 'conclusion' that petitioner's reply was not found to be satisfactory. Why reply was not found to be satisfactory is not dealt with. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 11. The appellate order suffers from same infirmity. The appellant's various grounds including the ground that a new reason is assigned in the suspension order is not dealt with by Appellate Authority. The appellant's contentions were not accepted on the basis of a report obtained from Junior Supply Officer, Niwari. This method is totally unknown to law. The application of principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to an empty public relation exercise or a futile exercise. If the reasons given in the defence or in the reply are not to be dealt with, there is no use of undertaking the exercise of issuance of notice and passing of appellate order. I seriously deprecate the manner in which both the impugned orders are passed. 12. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010 AIR SCW 5715) emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. I seriously deprecate the manner in which both the impugned orders are passed. 12. The Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010 AIR SCW 5715) emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: 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 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. on 8 September, 2010 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. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. on 8 September, 2010 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 in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). 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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, 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". 13. In view of this judgment, since in the impugned orders no reasons are assigned as to why the defence taken by the petitioner is not trustworthy, both the orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to pass a fresh order and proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 15. The petition is allowed to the extend indicated above. C.C. as per rules.