2025:JHHC:14968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1159 of 2025 ----- 1. Nirmal Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Bachu Mishra, R/o Santhalia Campus, Karnibagh, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar 2. Uma Kanth Jha, S/o Shri Shiv Pujan Jha, R/o Raghunath Road, Bilasi Town, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar 3. Manas Roy Choudhary, S/o Late Pradyut Roy Choudhary, R/o 320, Kalighat Road, P.O. & P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-26 Pargana, 700040 … …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Registration, Revenue and Land Reforms, Officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurva, Dist.-Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar officiating from his office at O/o the Deputy Commissioner, P.O & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar 3. Circle Officer, Deoghar officiating from his office at O/o the Circle Officer, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, AC to AG ----- Oral Order 03 / Dated : 10.06.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in Case No. 1844/2024-25 and 1845/2024-25 by which the application for mutation has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mutation application has been rejected by the impugned orders without assigning any specific reason. It is further contended that the order is non-speaking and does not give specific reason for rejection. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Sate that the petitioners have not exhausted statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that it is entirely devoid of any reasoning. It is well settled that the reason is the soul of any order passed by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. In absence of the articulated reasons, an Appellate Authority would be unable to ascertain the basis on which the order was passed. In such 2025:JHHC:14968 2 circumstances, it would not serve the ends of justice to relegate the petitioners to the appellate forum, particularly when the impugned order is, on the face of it, non-speaking. 5. Under the circumstance, the Circle Officer, Deoghar (Respondent no. 3) is directed to pass reasoned order afresh within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after affording full opportunity to the petitioners. Writ petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra