JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Karunanidhi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Badrish Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.01.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been rejected. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, it will be relevant to note certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition. 4. The Lucknow Development Authority had put certain commercial plots for auction. The first round of auction was held on 04.10.2023 wherein the petitioner had submitted his bid which was the highest, however, the respondents No.3 and 4 did not accept the said bid and as such the said plot was put to re-auction. Since, the bid of the petitioner was not accepted for commercial Plot No.3, Commercial Sector Scheme, Sector-6, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, hence, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No.1. 5. With the said revision, the petitioner had also preferred an application for interim relief which was not heard or considered and in the meantime, it is stated, that the respondents No.3 and 4 had re-scheduled the auction on 24.01.2024. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by means of a petition filed under Article 227 bearing No.41/2024 which was disposed of on 09.01.2024 with a direction that the revision of the petitioner may be heard and decided and at least the application for interim relief be decided on the next date and if that was not possible then at least prior to the date fixed for re-auction. 6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent No.1 considered and decided the revision of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 19.01.2024. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order dated 19.01.2024 has filed the instant petition wherein it has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Certain document was received behind the back of the petitioner which has been considered in the impugned order. 8. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order dated 19.01.2024 has filed the instant petition wherein it has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Certain document was received behind the back of the petitioner which has been considered in the impugned order. 8. It is also urged that the impugned order is absolutely non-speaking so much so that the entire revision with its grounds have been reproduced by the respondent No.1 and it is referred to certain report furnished by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority upon which the revision has been dismissed without even determining the issue raised by the petitioner. 9. It is further urged that apparently no hearing had taken place and the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 appears to be ante-dated. Thus, since the principles of natural justice have been violated, accordingly the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 10. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, this Court on 30.01.2024 had directed the learned standing counsel to produce the original record of the aforesaid revision before this Court. 11. Today, the original record has been placed before this Court. From the perusal thereof, it indicates that the revision filed by the petitioner is available on record along with an application seeking disposal of the application for interim relief. However, there is no order-sheet nor there is any minutes of meeting or record of proceedings by which it may be discerned as to when and how the proceedings were held and conducted. 12. The record further indicates that on 02.01.2024 letter was issued to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority informing regarding the revision and to furnish the reply. There is an attendant sheet on record, which indicates that the parties had appeared for hearing on 17.01.2024, but there is nothing on record to indicate as to how the date of 17.01.2024 was communicated to the parties. 13. It has been pointed out that notice was issued to put and he was informed through the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority and even the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 was sent to the petitioner through the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority. 14. This Court finds that there is no proper record of proceedings of the hearing of the said revision. It has been pointed out that notice was issued to put and he was informed through the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority and even the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 was sent to the petitioner through the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority. 14. This Court finds that there is no proper record of proceedings of the hearing of the said revision. All that can be seen from the record is the exchange of correspondence between the learned standing counsel and the State authorities. 15. However, insofar as the revision before the respondent No.1 is concerned, there is just one letter No.1009/vkB-8-23-132-Purn/2023. This indicates that the notice was issued to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority informing the date as 17.01.2024 for the revision. 16. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that on 05.01.2024 the information was given to the petitioner on his whatsapp number, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.15. It is the case of the petitioner that he also responded on the same whatsapp number whereby the application filed by the petitioner informing the revisional authority of the order passed by this Court dated 09.01.2024 on 20.01.2024. It was categorically stated that even though the first date fixed was 17.01.2024 but none appeared on behalf of the respondents No.3 and 4 nor any objection to the revision and the interim relief application was filed and, therefore, there was no further date fixed. Since, the High Court in its order dated 09.01.2024 had directed the revisional authority to consider and decide the application for interim relief prior to the date fixed for re-auction, hence, a request was made for fixing a date prior to 24.01.2024. 17. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Senior Counsel submits that no opportunity of hearing was given and the impugned order indicates that certain reports were furnished by the Lucknow Development Authority which has been considered and the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and moreover the report/reply submitted by the Lucknow Development Authority was not even served on the petitioner yet it has been taken note of while rejecting the revision of the petitioner. 18. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the entire proceedings were in a sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the entire proceedings were in a sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 19. Learned standing counsel while defending the impugned order submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as his contentions have been considered and the order has been passed, accordingly, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority submits that the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had earlier participated in an auction on 04.10.2023 wherein in respect of Commercial Plot No.3 in Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme No.6, the bid of the petitioner, though highest, but it was substantially lower compared to other plots which were also auctioned on the said date and which were contiguous to Plot No.3. 21. It is urged that the petitioner had submitted his highest bid of Rs. 82,058.96 per sq. metre whereas in the re-auction, the same plot has fetched at Rs. 1,44,718.01 per sq. metre. It is urged that the petitioner could have participated in the re-auction but merely by taking the instance of violation of principle of natural justice, the entire auction proceedings are sought to be stalled. 22. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the original record relating to the revision. 23. Needless to say that the State exercises the powers of revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 24. This Court further finds that insofar as the hearing is concerned, there is no clarity as to how the petitioner was communicated the date of hearing. Even assuming if the date of 17.01.2024 was informed to the parties and on which date the parties did appear, however, there is no record of proceedings to indicate that what transpired on 17.01.2024. 25. There is no reply regarding the averment in context with Annexure No.15 to the petition wherein it is alleged that the petitioner had informed the respondent No.1 regarding the order passed by the High Court on 09.01.2024 for fixing the date for the disposal of the application for interim relief prior to the date fixed for re-auction. 26. 25. There is no reply regarding the averment in context with Annexure No.15 to the petition wherein it is alleged that the petitioner had informed the respondent No.1 regarding the order passed by the High Court on 09.01.2024 for fixing the date for the disposal of the application for interim relief prior to the date fixed for re-auction. 26. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would further indicate that there has been complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the entire contents of the revision including the grounds have been reproduced. Thereafter the reply/report of the Lucknow Development Authority has been noticed and the decision has been rendered while there is no consideration regarding the specific grounds raised by the petitioner upon which it sought to challenge the order refusing to accept the highest bid of the petitioner and putting Plot No.C-3 for re-auction. 27. There is no material on record to indicate that the reply which has been furnished by the Lucknow Development Authority was provided by the petitioner or he was put to his notice and this report has been considered and made the basis for rejecting the revision. 28. The Apex Court in Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another v. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431 has held as under:- "11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 12. 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 : (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] 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. 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." 29. This Court is satisfied that the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1 did not give an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor the impugned order contains any discussion or reasons to support the order rather it appears to have been passed in a mechanical exercise of statutory revisional powers. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner has been considered and decided, hence, the order is clearly non-reasoned. 30. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that it is said to be passed on 19.01.2024. The order does not take into effect nor does it refer to the order passed by this Court dated 09.01.2024. This assumes significance for the reasons that the order dated 09.01.2024 was passed by this Court directing the revisional authority to at least decide the application for interim relief prior to the date of holding of auction and the said application is said to have been given by the petitioner to the respondent-authority through whatsapp from which the petitioner had received the message as evident from the Annexure No.15 to the petition. The original record does not indicate that the said order dated 09.01.2024 was brought to the notice of the revisional authority. 31. The revisional authority has passed the impugned order wherein the entire contents of the revision has been noticed but subsequent event regarding filing of a petition and passing of the order by this Court dated 09.01.2024 has not been mentioned. 31. The revisional authority has passed the impugned order wherein the entire contents of the revision has been noticed but subsequent event regarding filing of a petition and passing of the order by this Court dated 09.01.2024 has not been mentioned. There are letters sent by the under Secretary of the State addressed to the learned standing counsel dated 30.01.2024 where there is a reference to the order dated 09.01.2024. It is in this view that the paragraph-29 of the petition appears to have some substance. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The revisional authority shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall consider and decide the revision afresh by a reasoned order and a speaking order. The entire exercise may be completed within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent No.1. 33. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority dated 19.01.2024 is set aside. 34. The original record placed before this Court in pursuance of the order dated 30.01.2024 has been handed over to the learned Chief Standing counsel. 35. It is made clear that the impugned order has been set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and it being non-speaking and the Court has not examined the merits of the respective pleas raised by the parties. It will be open for the revisional authority to decide the revision on its own merits. Costs are made easy.