ORDER 1. This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.5.2025 (Annexure P/5) whereby representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a president of Fortune Glory Society, E-8 Extension, Arera Colony, Bhopal, which was established twenty years ago. The residents of the Colony are using the main road as well as internal roads. But to utter surprise, the boundary wall adjoining the internal roads of the northern side of the petitioner's society was demolished. The petitioner made a complaint to the police authorities and an application to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal vide impugned letter informed the petitioner with respect to layout plan sanctioned to the private respondents whereby the roads of the petitioners society were marked as coordination road. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 826 : (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held as under :- "47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:- (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, quasijudicial 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. (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 731-737). (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 (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 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." 4. The record indicates that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner have taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process." 4. The record indicates that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner have taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the order impugned being a non-speaking order without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cannot sustain judicial scrutiny in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (supra). Hence, the impugned order dated 28.5.2025 is unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. 5. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 to reconsider the complaint made by the petitioner and pass a self contained speaking order and communicate outcome to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order giving audience to the petitioner. 6. Till then, the status quo with respect to property in question be maintained. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.