HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 991 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rakesh Srivastava learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. It has been informed that the private respondent no.5 is the brother of the petitioner and proforma party. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in a revision whereby the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner has been rejected by a cryptic and a non speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed his revision along with an application for interim relief which was not considered at the relevant time and this prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by means of Writ B no.778 of 2025 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court directing the parties to cooperate in the hearing before the D.D.C who was directed to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner for interim relief and till the said decision the parties were directed not to alienate the property in question. It is urged that though in furtherance of the order dated 14.08.2025, the application for interim relief was considered but rejected on 04.10.2025 by a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Krishna Sharan Dubey @ Aniruddha Dubey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) non speaking order and the revision is now listed on 24.10.2025. It is urged that since the order is patently non speaking coupled with the fact that the issue is still engaging the attention of the revisional court on merits, in such circumstances, the earlier interim protection which was granted may be continued and the petitioner undertakes that he will not seek adjournment before the revisional authority. Sri Rakesh Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed the aforesaid submission but could not dispute the fact that the order dated 04.10.2025 by which the application for interim relief has been rejected does not contain a single reason. It is now too well settled to be disputed that reasons is the heart and soul of any order. Any order whether judicial, quasi judicial or administrative in nature if it does not conform to the basic parameters of introducing reasons in the order to arrive at any conclusion it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. (See: Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431). In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending or call for a counter affidavit from the private respondent and ends of justice can be met by directing the revisional authority to consider and decide the revision preferably on the next date or in case if the same is not possible then within four weeks thereafter. Till the decision of the revision, none of the parties shall alienate the property in question or create any third party right. It is also observed that this Court has not entered into the merit and any observation may not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits and the revisional authority shall be well within its rights to decide the revision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. October 13, 2025 Harshita WRIB No. 991 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench