ORDER : The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief : “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings inRc.No.A1/11026 (42)/21/2022 dated 01.12.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as hereditary archaka as bad, illegal, arbitrary, void and violative of principles of natural justice and violtive of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondent No.2 to declare the petitioner as hereditary archaka and to continue the petitioner as long as he is physically fit to render heredity archakatvam in the 3rd respondent temple and pass such other orders may deem fit and proper”. 2. Petitioner in the affidavit contended that the petitioner has been performing archakatvam services hereditarily in the 3rd respondent Temple from 1974. The Temple was brought under the purview of Endowments Department before Act 30 of 1987. Petitioner filed suit O.S.No.491 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Judge, Kovvuru and the trustees proposed to conduct public auction to license for collection of coconut all these years. The said suit was decreed. (a) In the written statement filed in the said suit, trustee of the Temple contended that the Temple was constructed 15 years ago and from the date of installation of idol, father of the petitioner was appointed as archaka. The hereditary archakatvam rights were restored as per Section 34(3) of Act 30 of 1987. Scheme was not framed under Section 144 of Act 30 of 1987. Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.439 Revenue (Endowments-1) Department, dated 21.10.2019. As per Rule 2(3) of the Rules, option has been given to the hereditary archakas who are eligible to be recognized as hereditary archakas whether to continue as per the Rules or the Rules framed under Section 35(3) of Act 30 of 1987. (b) Petitioner submitted applications to the Respondent No.2 vide E Nos.3177538/2019, dated 24.12.2019, 4984910/2021, dated 20.09.2021 and 5017053/2021, dated 27.09.2021 to recognize him as hereditary archaka. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.23476 of 2021 to consider his application and the same was disposed of on 29.04.2022. (c) The Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajamahendravaram submitted an enquiry report vide Rc.No.A3/446555/2022 dated 04.11.2022. (b) Petitioner submitted applications to the Respondent No.2 vide E Nos.3177538/2019, dated 24.12.2019, 4984910/2021, dated 20.09.2021 and 5017053/2021, dated 27.09.2021 to recognize him as hereditary archaka. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.23476 of 2021 to consider his application and the same was disposed of on 29.04.2022. (c) The Regional Joint Commissioner, Rajamahendravaram submitted an enquiry report vide Rc.No.A3/446555/2022 dated 04.11.2022. However, Respondent No.2 vide the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/11026 (42)/21/2022 dated 01.12.2022 rejected the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 to 8, Sri Venkat, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Vandana, learned counsel representing learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Respondent No.2 rejected the application made by the petitioner since the respondent Nos.4 to 8 opposed the case of the petitioner. He would contend that Respondent No.2 had not dealt with the application independently. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8 would submit that Respondent No.2 passed the order by exercising the powers under G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 21.10.2019. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that Respondent No.2 being the authority under the Act on a careful consideration of the Rules made under the G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 21.10.2019 passed appropriate orders. Learned Standing Counsel adopted the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7. It is well established principle of law that reasons are heart and soul of any order. The order passed by respondent No.2 does not contain reasons and in the absence of any reasons, the impugned order passed by the authority becomes vulnerable. 8. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496, while considering the ambit of reasons, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized as follows : “(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. (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 lifeblood 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 instrumentalism. (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 Harvard 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 Harvard 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] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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”. 9. In the case on hand petitioner made representations to consider his case and to recognise him as hereditary archaka. 2nd respondent by order dated 01-12-2022 rejected the same. Whether the order dated 01-12-2022, 2nd respondent assigned any reasons to reject the application. 10. A perusal of the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 would indicate, extract of order in the earlier writ petition, report of the Regional Joint Commissioner and further the representation made by respondent Nos.4 to 8. Respondent No.2, without assigning any reasons, came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for hereditary archakatvam as per Section 34(3) of Act 30/1987. The order passed by the 2nd respondent lacking any reason much less discussion. In fact, the petitioner made a detailed representation by pointing out the provisions under G.O.Ms.No.439. The Regional Joint Commissioner after enquiry recommended the case of the petitioner to recognize him as hereditary archaka of the subject Temple. Of course, the report of the Regional Joint Commissioner doesn’t bind the 2nd respondent. 11. Respondent No.2 being the competent authority either can act upon the report or consider the same if it is in accordance with the Rules. However, 2nd respondent has to give reasons either to accept or to reject the case of petitioner. The proceedings of 2nd respondent, impugned in the writ petition, do not contain any reasons. 12. 11. Respondent No.2 being the competent authority either can act upon the report or consider the same if it is in accordance with the Rules. However, 2nd respondent has to give reasons either to accept or to reject the case of petitioner. The proceedings of 2nd respondent, impugned in the writ petition, do not contain any reasons. 12. Availability of alternative remedy will not debar the petitioner to approach this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the order passed by the Respondent No.2 is bereft of reasons. Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 observed that Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In appropriate cases in spite of alternative remedy, the high court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in atleast three contingencies (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged. 13. In the case on hand, since no reasons are assigned in order, dated 01.12.2022, impugned in the writ petition, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above discussion the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/11026(42)/25/2022, dated 01.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.2. Matter is remitted to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall pass reasoned order within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. Till an order is passed by Respondent No.2, the petitioner shall continue as archaka in the subject Temple. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.