JUDGMENT : By way of instant appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 26.12.2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1632 of 2002. 2. Brief facts, forming backdrop of case are that predecessor-in-interest of appellant No.1 alongwith appellant No.2 had preferred a revision petition before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 12.08.1997, inter alia, challenging the consolidation proceedings finalized in the year 1986-87. The Additional Director, Consolidation, H.P. vide order dated 29.12.2001 allowed the revision petition. The order so passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, was assailed before this Court in CWP No. 1632 of 2002 broadly on two grounds, firstly, that the Additional Director, Consolidation had exceeded the jurisdiction by entertaining a revision petition after 10 years and, secondly, that the order was non-speaking. 3. Learned Single Judge, by upholding the contention of the writ petitioner, proceeded to set-aside the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. It was found and held by learned Single Judge that the consolidation in the concerned area stood closed after its finalization in the year 1986-87. The revision petition filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation was clearly beyond limitation. It was held that no limitation was provided under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, still the same had to be filed within reasonable time and 10 years could not be said to be reasonable time. Learned Single Judge further held the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation to be non-speaking. 4. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sh. Gautam Sood, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants has argued that the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation was perfectly legal in the given facts and circumstances of the case and learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the same without any basis. 5. We have perused the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Its perusal reveals that the said order is bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. The concluding para of said order reads as under: “……Both the parties were heard in detail and the concerned record has been examined. From the inspection of the record, it is found that the points raised by the counsel of the appellant are based on facts, hence the case of the appellant is accepted and the order for the following tartim is passed: Sr. From the inspection of the record, it is found that the points raised by the counsel of the appellant are based on facts, hence the case of the appellant is accepted and the order for the following tartim is passed: Sr. No. Name of Share holder Excluded Area Included Area Old Kh. No. New Kh. No Old Kh. No. New Kh. No 1. Total share- 48 Devi Singh- Bhagat Ram Bhup Singh-Mehar Singh Ramdhan Son & Roso Devi daughter equal share-36 share & Smt. Fithi Devi-7 share Widow of Hari Singh son of Kundan Om Parkash-Pardeep Kumar Son & Smt. Sudershana Devi-Sunita Devi daughter & Smt. Kunti Devi Widow of Lalman son of Hari Singh equal Share-5 share Mundarja Khewat No.-36 Jamabandi for the year 1998-99. 1335 1336 1338 751 Min 0-04-05 912 703 0-02-59 Discrepancy has been made good after preparing new Katha 2. Smt. Premi Devi daughter and Smt. Sahiban Devi widow Khemdi son of Kundan equal share of Mundarja Khewat No. 38 jamabandi for the year 1998-99. 912 703 0-02-59 1335 751/1 0-00-73 Discrepancy has been made good after preparing new kathta 3. Devi Singh etc. Mundarja Khewat No-36 half Smt. Premi Devi etc. Mundarja Khewat No-38 Half New khata has been prepared. 1336 1338 751/2 0-03-32 Copy of the order be sent to the C.O. Hamirpur for compliance and preparation of Tartim and Tatima. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance and necessary action. Announced. Place: Jaisinghpur. Sd/- Dated: 29.12.2001. Additional Director, Consolidation Department, H.P. Shimla-9.” Thus, the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation cannot be countenanced for the reason that the same is non-speaking on material particulars of the case. It was not a case where no contest was made by the party-respondent. It is trite law that the orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities have to be supported by reasons 6. The necessity of assigning reason has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the position of law was summarized as under:- (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 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 731-37). (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 in Defence of Judicial Candor, 1987 100 Harward Law Review 731-37). (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, 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". 7. We also do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge on 26.12.2007 insofar as it held the revision filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation, to be barred by delay and laches. 8. It is more than settled that in absence of prescription of any specific period of limitation in a statute, the remedies cannot be said to be available to a party to assail an order passed under such Act at its whims. The challenge has to be made within reasonable period. The unjustified and unreasonable delay in making challenge to an order passed by any authority may lead to situation causing grave prejudice to the other side. With the passage of time valuable rights are often acquired by the party having favourable order and belated interference therewith may cause injustice. 9. In light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.