JUDGMENT : 1. The case is called out. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate are present in the Court. 3. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to stay the operation and implementation of orders dated 10.03.2021 passed by respondent no.1, Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda in Appeal No.00223/2021 (Computer No. C202108000000223), filed under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 so far it relates to denial in granting interim relief as well as order dated 23.02.2021 passed by respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No.01004/2018 (Computer Case No. D201808150001004), under Section 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, 1970, during pendency of present writ petition. 4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1, Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda, admitted the appeal against the order dated 23.02.2021, passed by respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Bahraich under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 but denying the prayer to stay the operation of the order of the District Magistrate, Bahraich on the ground that there are criminal cases registered against the appellants. 5. Apparently, the order of respondent no.1, as appellate authority is not a speaking order. 6. Prima facie the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is unreasoned and non-speaking, as such, indicates failure on the part of aforesaid respondent no.1 to discharge his duty. 7. Why the reason is said to be heart of every conclusion, has been discussed in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568 in para 8, which is quoted as under:- "Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed: “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.” “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 reason 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-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 8. The necessity of reasons for reaching at a conclusion further finds place in another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 , in para 40, which is quoted hereunder:- "It is a settled legal proposition that not only an administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. “The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.” (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [ (2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794 ] and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal [ (2004) 5 SCC 573 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53] )" 9. In the present context, it would be pertinent to have a look upon the order of District Magistrate, Bahraich impugned in the appeal pending before the respondent no.1, which refers three criminal cases pending against the accused-appellant, which are as follows:- (i) Case Crime No.27/2018, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. (ii) Case Crime No.2423/2017, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. (iii) Beat information report No.29 at 20:16 dated 23.07.2018. 10. With regard to above criminal cases, the order of District Magistrate, Bahraich itself mentioned the explanation submitted by the accused-appellant that there was a dispute between the parties to the incident, as to a landed property, wherein he has been bailed out by order of the competent court, as the aforesaid cases were instituted against him falsely, as a matter of fact, he use to live in Delhi in connection with his employment. This would also be pertinent to keep into mind the definition of "Goonda" given under Section 2 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, which runs as under:- "(b) 'Goonda' means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or (ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or (iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or (iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or (vi) is a tout;" 11. On perusal of the order of District Magistrate, Bahraich, it appears that there is no mention of offence affecting the general public at large, however, the dispute is between two individually litigating parties only with regard to the dispute as to landed property, as such, while considering the matter under Goondas Act, there should be a discussion on the applicability of the Act also, but the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich is lacking and nonspeaking in this regard, as discussed hereinabove. 12. This is cardinal principle which must be observed by every authority while passing an order, from which civil/criminal consequences flow, to assign reasons for reaching at such conclusion. This rule to be observed by every authority while sitting into capacity of judicial, quasi judicial as well in administrative capacity whatsoever may be. 13. Learned A.G.A. at this stage submitted that he would have no objection, if any, such direction is issued to decide the interim stay on application or the appeal pending before the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda (respondent no.1) by way of speaking and well reasoned order within a period specified by the Court. 14. The necessity of service of notice upon the opposite parties are dispensed with as learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of all the opposite parties. 14. The necessity of service of notice upon the opposite parties are dispensed with as learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of all the opposite parties. 15. The Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda is directed to decide the Appeal No.00223/2021 (Computer No. C202108000000223), filed under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 on merit expeditiously with all practicable promptness within a period of one month by a reasoned and speaking order as discussed hereinabove or if by reason of any administrative business it is not possible to decide the same within aforesaid period of one month, to decide on such other date not beyond three months from the date, the certified copy of the order is placed before him. 16. Meanwhile, the enforcement, effect and operation of the order of District Magistrate, Bahraich dated 23.02.2021 in Case No. 01004/2018 (Computer Case No. D201808150001004), under Section 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, 1970 shall remain in abeyance. 17. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) is to communicate the order of the Court promptly to the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.