Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46392 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 845 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar,Neeraj Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge Fast Track-I/Special Judge NDPS Act, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "trial Court"), Case Crime No. 162/2023, under Sections 8/20/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "Act of 1985), Police Station - Aliganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar. Vide impugned order dated 18.06.2025, the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist seeking release of vehicle. It is stated that the trial Court took note of Section 60(3) of Act of 1985 and also the facts of the case as would appear from paragraphs 5 & 5 of the impugned order and while rejecting the application seeking release of the vehicle i.e. Ertiga bearing registration no. DL-4C-AU-9374, the trial Court has not recorded the reasons which are required. It is also stated that the trial Court has failed to take note of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in which, certain observations have been made regarding release of vehicles and goods seized and also the judgment passed by this Court at Allahabad in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 22859 of 2024 (Birendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 12.05.2025 as also judgement passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC. No. 2138 of 2017 (B.Hassainar Azeez Vs. State of Kerala) decided on 12.04.2017. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. A bare perusal of the order indicates that for the purposes of rejection of prayers of the petitioner in the application no reason has been recorded though reasons are required to be recorded. It is a settled principle of law that an order passed by a quasi- judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must be a 'speaking order' and it must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a sphinx'. In judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836, the Apex Court observed as follows: "28 …. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasijudicial. They should reveal a rationale nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinion or decisions recorded to be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." Lord Denning M.R., in the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union reported in (1971) 2 QB 175, 191 : (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed as under: "the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." For the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The order dated 18.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass afresh order on the issue of release of vehicle of the applicant within a period of one month the date of production of certified copy of this order. Liberty is also given to the applicant to move fresh application on the subject. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench