ORDER : B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award and recovery certificate passed in AA/CF/No.422 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 by the Deputy Registrar of Chits Warangal District at Hanamkonda. 2. Petitioners are opponent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 is the disputant in AA/CF/No.422 of 2021 and respondent No.2 is the Deputy Registrar of Chits. 3. It is stated in the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not necessary parties to the petition. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award and recovery certificate passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal is erroneous in Law and against the material available on record. Learned Registrar without issuing notice to the petitioners and giving them an opportunity passed the award. Respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure enunciated under Rule 50 of A.P. Chit Funds Rules, 2008. The award and recovery certificate issued is illegal. 4.2. Respondent No.1 now taking advantage of the ex parte award and recovery certificate, initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.42 of 2023 which is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence with regard to the amount claimed by them, award for Rs.2,27,600/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,01,377/- is awarded from the date of filing till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5,465/-. 4.3. The learned Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal has not assigned any reasons as to how the said amounts are to be paid by the petitioners – opponent Nos.1 and 2. In support of his contentions has relied on the decision of this Court in Jogu Venkatamma Vs. Hamsika Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., CRP No.478 of 2024, dated 17.06.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners-opponent Nos.1 and 2 has a remedy under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act and the CRP is not maintainable, respondent No.2 has followed the procedure contemplated under Chit Fund Rules and rightly passed the award and recovery certificate which does not requires interference of this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in (1) Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C.Krishnan, 2001 6 SCC 569 (2) Mohammed Tajuddin Vs. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in (1) Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C.Krishnan, 2001 6 SCC 569 (2) Mohammed Tajuddin Vs. Srinidhi Chits (Hyderabad) Private Limited, CRP No.1599 of 2025, dated 02.05.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana  at Hyderabad (3) Sri G.Thimma Reddy Vs. M/s. Dhanwan Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd., CRP No.652 of 2020, dated 02.02.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana  at Hyderabad 6. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 7. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the award and recovery certificate passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal District at Hanamkonda in AA/CF/No.422 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 suffers from procedural defects? If so does it requires interference of this Court? 8. The award dated 20.11.2021 goes to show that notice to petitioner Nos.1 and 2-opponent Nos.1 and 2 is served as per postal acknowledgment. 9. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan , [ (2010) 9 SCC 496 ] , formulated certain principles which reads 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. 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 Harvard 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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain (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 decision.' (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'." 10. In Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Gujarat and Others , [2022 SCC Online Guj 2530] , has observed as under: "At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. State of Gujarat and Others , [2022 SCC Online Guj 2530] , has observed as under: "At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407 , Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336 ; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258 , has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order." 11. Jogu Venkatamma case(supra) has not dealt with Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 which reads as under: “70. Appeal against decision of Registrar or nominee. —Any party aggrieved by any order passed by the Registrar or the nominee or the award of the Registrar or the nominee under section 69, may, within two months from the date of the order or award, appeal to the State Government”. 13. In Punjab National Bank(supra), the Supreme Court observed at Para No.6 which reads as under: “6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. 13. In Punjab National Bank(supra), the Supreme Court observed at Para No.6 which reads as under: “6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act”. 14. In Mohammed Tajuddin(supra), the High Court observed that the petitioner failed to make out any ground to maintain the present revision despite availability of alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 to challenge the award. 15. In G.Thimmareddy(supra), the High Court observed that the aggrieved party against the order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act is to prefer an Appeal to the State Government within two months from the date of the order. 16. No reason could be assigned by the petitioner’s counsel to demonstrate why the jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when efficacious remedy under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act is provided. The decisions cited by the respondent No.1 counsel are applicable to the case on hand. 17. The petitioners are relegated to prefer an appeal before the State Government under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . If such appeal is preferred within a period of 4 weeks from today the same be entertained, decided and disposed of on merits without raising an issue with respect to limitation subject to compliance of statutory requirements. 17. The petitioners are relegated to prefer an appeal before the State Government under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . If such appeal is preferred within a period of 4 weeks from today the same be entertained, decided and disposed of on merits without raising an issue with respect to limitation subject to compliance of statutory requirements. The State Government to decide and dispose of the appeal and the issue without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 18. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in favour of either of the parties. 19. The order pronounced in the CRP cannot be used as a binding precedent in any other case in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 20. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Authority under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 as indicated in the order without costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.