ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2022, whereby respondent No. 3 has rejected his claim for medical reimbursement amounting to Rs. 54,848/-. The petitioner, serving as Assistant Grade-II in the Secretariat Services, Mantralaya, Raipur, had sought reimbursement for the treatment and surgery of his minor son for Hypospadias at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur—an empanelled hospital. Despite due intimation and compliance with all procedural formalities, the claim was rejected arbitrarily on the ground of lack of urgency, and the subsequent representation was also dismissed without valid reason. Hence, this petition seeking following reliefs : “i. To kindly set aside the rejection order dated 24/9/2022 (Annexure P/1) with respect to medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner passed by respondent no. 3 and further respondent no. 3 may kindly be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner with respect to payment of medical reimbursement of Rs. 54,848/-. ii. To kindly the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the medical reimbursement of Rs. 54,848/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application with compensation for delay and mental agony. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is serving as an employee of the Secretariat Services under the Government of Chhattisgarh, in the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Raipur. He is presently posted as Assistant Grade-II in the Department of Women and Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). During the year 2018–2019, the minor son of the petitioner, namely Master Devansh Kaushik, aged about 2 years and 4 months, was diagnosed with Hypospadias (Urinary Difficulty), a congenital condition requiring specialized surgical treatment. The child was under regular medical supervision and treatment at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur, where the attending physician advised surgical intervention. The surgery for Hypospadias was to be conducted in two stages. The first stage of the operation was successfully performed in the months of September–October 2018. Thereafter, it was medically advised that the second stage of surgery be carried out at the same hospital to ensure continuity of care and medical safety. In November 2019, the child again developed complications and urinary difficulty, and upon medical examination, was advised immediate admission. The first stage of the operation was successfully performed in the months of September–October 2018. Thereafter, it was medically advised that the second stage of surgery be carried out at the same hospital to ensure continuity of care and medical safety. In November 2019, the child again developed complications and urinary difficulty, and upon medical examination, was advised immediate admission. Consequently, the second stage of the surgery was performed on 15.11.2019 at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur. It is pertinent to mention that Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur is a hospital duly recognized and enlisted by the State Government of Chhattisgarh for providing medical treatment to State Government employees and their dependent family members. As per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, it is mandatory that in cases of emergency treatment, the concerned employee must intimate the Director, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the Head of the Department within 48 hours of the commencement of treatment, and post facto approval may thereafter be obtained. The petitioner duly complied with the aforesaid requirement and intimated the concerned authorities within 48 hours of the admission of his son for emergency surgery. After the successful completion of the treatment and recovery of his child, the petitioner submitted an application for Medical Reimbursement in the prescribed format on 16.12.2019, enclosing all requisite documents and medical certificates. Respondent No. 2, upon due consideration, forwarded the application filed by petitioner along with supporting documents to the Civil Surgeon, Bilaspur, for verification vide letter dated 17.12.2019. The Civil Surgeon, after due verification of the documents, issued a certificate on 09.01.2020 certifying that an amount of Rs. 54,848/- was payable to the petitioner as medical reimbursement. Under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, respondent No. 3 is the competent authority to sanction reimbursement claims exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was forwarded to respondent No. 3 for necessary consideration and sanction. However, respondent No. 3, without proper application of mind and without appreciating the circumstances of the case in their correct perspective, rejected the medical reimbursement of petitioner claim vide order dated 23.03.2021 ^^vR;ko';d ifjfLFkfr esa mipkj dk Ádj.k Árhr ugha gksrk gS] vr% iqufoZpkj mijkUr vekU;A** The action of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the spirit of the Medical Attendance Rules. 3. 3. It is further submitted that the minor son of the petitioner was barely two and a half years old and was suffering from a serious congenital urological disorder. The surgery performed was a life-saving and medically urgent procedure. The petitioner had duly informed the authorities within 48 hours and availed treatment at an authorized and empanelled hospital under the State Government. It is submitted that the life and health of a two-year-old child are matters of utmost emergency to a parent, and therefore, rejection on the ground of “no emergency” is unreasonable and insensitive to the humanitarian and legal principles involved. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation on 24.12.2021 requesting reconsideration of his reimbursement claim. In his representation, the petitioner specifically explained that the treatment was continued under the same doctor and hospital where the first stage of surgery had been performed and that the second surgery became urgently necessary owing to the recurrence of complications and pain. The choice of the same empanelled hospital was both reasonable and medically justified. The said representation was duly forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 for appropriate action. However, once again, respondent No. 3, without assigning any valid or reasoned basis, rejected the claim vide order dated 24.09.2022, merely recording the word “??????”. The rejection order was subsequently communicated to the petitioner on 08.02.2023 by respondent No. 4. The rejection of the genuine medical reimbursement claim of petitioner by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the genuine claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement has been rejected, is arbitrary, unjust, unfair, and contrary to law. It is contended that the said rejection suffers from complete non-application of mind and is violative of the settled principles of administrative fairness and natural justice. The petitioner, being a government servant, is entitled to medical reimbursement as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, and the impugned order, being unreasoned and mechanical, is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the impugned rejection letter dated 24.09.2022 merely contains the remark “??????” (invalid) without disclosing any reasons for rejection. The petitioner, being a government servant, is entitled to medical reimbursement as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, and the impugned order, being unreasoned and mechanical, is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the impugned rejection letter dated 24.09.2022 merely contains the remark “??????” (invalid) without disclosing any reasons for rejection. No justification, analysis, or reasoning has been provided as to why the claim of the petitioner was held to be invalid. It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that every quasi-judicial or administrative order which affects civil rights must be a reasoned and speaking order. The failure to furnish reasons renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is settled doctrine that reason is the soul of justice and an unreasoned order is deemed to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned communication dated 24.09.2022 deserves to be set aside solely on the ground of being unreasoned, arbitrary, and non-speaking. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner had obtained treatment for his minor son at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur, which is an authorized and duly recognized hospital under the State Government for providing medical treatment to government employees and their dependents. The petitioner had submitted due intimation within the stipulated 48-hour period prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, and had also furnished all requisite documents along with the claim. The Civil Surgeon, Bilaspur, upon due verification, certified the treatment and recommended reimbursement of Rs. 54,848/-. The Head of Department also duly endorsed and forwarded the same. Therefore, once all competent authorities had verified and recommended the claim, respondent No. 3 could not have rejected it summarily without cogent reasoning. It is next submitted that the earlier rejection of the claim by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23.03.2021 on the ground that there was “no emergency” was equally misconceived and contrary to the medical record. The son of petitioner was barely two and a half years old, suffering from Hypospadias, a serious congenital urological condition requiring staged surgical intervention. After the first stage surgery in 2018, the second surgery became medically necessary in 2019 due to recurrence of urinary difficulty and infection. The surgery was advised by the same treating specialist, and its urgency was beyond question. After the first stage surgery in 2018, the second surgery became medically necessary in 2019 due to recurrence of urinary difficulty and infection. The surgery was advised by the same treating specialist, and its urgency was beyond question. Hence, the conclusion that there was “no emergency” reflects total non-appreciation of the factual and medical circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further urge that, being a parent of a two-year-old child suffering from a urological disorder, the petitioner could not afford to take any risk or delay in treatment. When the child again developed urinary complications and infection, the petitioner was bound by parental duty and medical advice to immediately admit him to the same hospital, where his prior records and medical history were available. In such a situation, any prudent person would act promptly to save the health of child. Therefore, the reasoning of “no emergency” is not only unjustified but also contrary to human logic and compassion. The refusal to recognize the immediacy of the situation reveals an arbitrary and insensitive exercise of discretion by the respondent authority. 5. It is further submitted that Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur being an empanelled hospital, was the most suitable and convenient place for the petitioner to obtain the second stage surgery of his son. The treatment was duly intimated within time, and post-facto approval under the relevant Rules was sought in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The rejection of the claim despite such compliance violates the very spirit of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2013, which are intended to facilitate, not frustrate, the legitimate medical rights of government employees and their dependents. The action of respondent of rejecting the claim on the ground that the case did not constitute an “emergency” is factually and legally untenable. Once the State has undertaken to provide medical facilities and reimbursement under statutory rules, denial of such benefits in an arbitrary and unreasoned manner constitutes a violation of the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness, and dignity. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Mannu Lal Jangde vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 373/2022), wherein it has been reiterated that the State cannot adopt a hyper-technical or pedantic approach in medical reimbursement matters and that such claims must be construed in a humane, pragmatic, and liberal manner. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Mannu Lal Jangde vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 373/2022), wherein it has been reiterated that the State cannot adopt a hyper-technical or pedantic approach in medical reimbursement matters and that such claims must be construed in a humane, pragmatic, and liberal manner. The claim made by petitioner was legitimate, fully supported by medical documentation and procedural compliance, and hence, the rejection of the same is unsustainable in law and on facts. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 3, and direct the respondents to release the medical reimbursement amount of Rs. 54,848/- in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. 6. At the outset, it is submitted by learned State Counsel that the short controversy involved in the present matter pertains only to the rejection of the claim of petitioner for medical reimbursement, which was incurred towards the treatment of his son, Master Devansh Kaushik, suffering from Hypospadias (Urinary Difficulty). It is contended that the rejection of the said claim has been done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2013”), and therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the impugned action. The writ petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of merit, substance, and cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned action has been taken within the ambit of statutory rules governing medical reimbursement, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity, violation of rule, or malice in the decision-making process. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that the petitioner admittedly got his minor son treated at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Centre, Bilaspur, which is a recognized and empanelled institution under the State Government for the treatment of government employees and their dependents. After completion of treatment, the petitioner submitted his medical bills for reimbursement of expenses incurred therein. Learned State counsel submits that the medical reimbursement of government employees is governed and regulated strictly under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. After completion of treatment, the petitioner submitted his medical bills for reimbursement of expenses incurred therein. Learned State counsel submits that the medical reimbursement of government employees is governed and regulated strictly under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. Rule 11 of the said Rules deals with post-facto sanction in cases where treatment is undertaken without prior referral or approval. The said rule clearly provides that post-facto sanction can be granted only in cases of emergency circumstances and that, in the absence of such emergency or sanction, reimbursement cannot be made. It further stipulates that such cases are to be examined by the Director, Medical Education or Director, AYUSH, as the case may be, and may involve the constitution of a Specialist Committee to evaluate the merits and demerits of the claim. It is contended that since the petitioner got his son treated at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Centre, Bilaspur without any referral or prior approval from the competent authority, his case was accordingly forwarded to the Director, Medical Education for consideration of post-facto sanction as required under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that, as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 11(5), a committee comprising the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department as Chairperson, along with senior officers including the Director, Medical Education; Director, AYUSH; Director, Health Services; a representative from the Finance Department; and two nominated Subject Specialists was constituted for examining such cases. In the caseof petitioner, the committee, upon perusal of the documents submitted, found it appropriate to seek the opinion of a Super Specialist Urologist before forming its final view. Consequently, the matter was referred to the said expert for medical evaluation. After thorough examination of the case, the Super Specialist Urologist opined that the treatment undergone by the son of petitioner did not fall within the ambit of an emergency situation. The medical documents, including prescriptions and laboratory reports furnished by the petitioner, did not indicate any life- threatening urgency or immediate medical emergency requiring prompt surgical intervention. The expert further noted that the condition was planned, elective, and routine in nature, and hence could not be treated as an “emergency” under the meaning of Rule 11. Based on this medical opinion, the committee found the case not fit for post-facto sanction. The expert further noted that the condition was planned, elective, and routine in nature, and hence could not be treated as an “emergency” under the meaning of Rule 11. Based on this medical opinion, the committee found the case not fit for post-facto sanction. It is further submitted that even in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not placed on record any material document such as prescriptions, medical reports, or emergency admission notes which could substantiate the existence of any emergent or life-threatening condition necessitating immediate surgery. In the absence of such documentary evidence, no inference of emergency can be drawn, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted as an emergency case merely on his personal assertion. Learned State counsel further submits that the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner had earlier been considered and rejected by the Director, Medical Education vide order dated 23.03.2021, which was duly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation, which was again placed before the competent committee and re-examined in light of the expert medical opinion. Hence, the subsequent rejection dated 24.09.2022 cannot be said to be mechanical or without due consideration, as the same is based on expert evaluation and the statutory scheme of the Rules of 2013. It is further contended that the right to reimbursement is not an absolute or fundamental right but a statutory entitlement subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The claim cannot be sanctioned beyond the scope of the governing rules. Since the competent medical authority, after expert examination, found that the case of petitioner did not involve an emergency, there was no occasion to grant reimbursement under the exception of post-facto sanction. The impugned order dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) has been issued strictly in accordance with the medical opinion, rules, and recommendations of the competent authority. The order is well-reasoned, just, proper, and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as being devoid of merit, since the impugned rejection of the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner is based on due process, proper application of mind, and expert medical opinion as envisaged under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. 8. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as being devoid of merit, since the impugned rejection of the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner is based on due process, proper application of mind, and expert medical opinion as envisaged under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents appended along with the petition. 9. Even the slightest pain to a child is of profound concern to parents. Given the moral, practical, and jurisprudential implications, the best interests standard remains the sound framework for resolving disputes over a medical care of a child. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the facts relating to treatment, surgery, and submission of claim are not disputed. The controversy hinges solely upon whether the treatment undertaken by the petitioner for his minor son could be considered an “emergency” under the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 and whether the rejection order dated 24.09.2022 is sustainable in law. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that respondent No. 3 has merely recorded the remark “??????,” without assigning any reasons or indicating any application of mind. The order is thus a non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is a settled principle of law that every administrative or quasi-judicial decision affecting rights of individuals must be a reasoned order. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan , (2010) 9 SCC 496 , has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion; without them, the order becomes lifeless. It was held as under : “47. Summarising 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. (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 lifeblood 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 731-37] .) (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 David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (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] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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”. 13. Hence, the impugned order, being bereft of reasons, cannot stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees non- arbitrariness in State action. The record further reveals that the hospital where the son of petitioner was treated is an empanelled institution recognized by the State Government. The petitioner had duly intimated the authorities within the stipulated 48-hour period, and the Civil Surgeon as well as the Head of Department had verified and recommended the reimbursement. Once such verification was complete, it was incumbent upon the sanctioning authority to either accept the recommendation or, if it intended to differ, to record specific reasons supported by material on record. In the present case, no such reasoning or material analysis is reflected in the impugned order. 14. The reasoning advanced by the respondents that there was “no emergency” also does not appear to be tenable. The patient in question was a two-and-a-half-year-old child suffering from a congenital urological disorder requiring staged surgical correction. After the first stage surgery, the recurrence of urinary difficulty and infection in November 2019 clearly constituted a medical exigency warranting immediate intervention. The petitioner, being a parent, was justified in acting promptly upon medical advice. In such circumstances, to expect a government employee to seek prior sanction before saving health of his child is wholly unreasonable and contrary to humanitarian considerations. The right to health is a recognized fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. The petitioner, being a parent, was justified in acting promptly upon medical advice. In such circumstances, to expect a government employee to seek prior sanction before saving health of his child is wholly unreasonable and contrary to humanitarian considerations. The right to health is a recognized fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. The right to medical care and health facilities is an essential part of the right to life. The State, being a welfare entity, is bound to ensure that no employee is deprived of legitimate medical benefits on hyper-technical or procedural grounds. The interpretation of “emergency” must be liberal and purposive, consistent with the object of the Rules, to protect the health and well-being of employees and their dependents. The reliance placed by the respondents on the expert opinion of the Urologist also does not advance their case. The said opinion merely states that “the case does not appear to be of emergency,” without any supporting reasoning or medical explanation. An opinion, to have evidentiary value, must disclose the basis of its conclusion. The absence of such reasoning renders the opinion inconclusive and insufficient to form the sole basis for denial of legitimate reimbursement. This Court also finds force in the submission that once the treatment was taken in a duly recognized and empanelled hospital, the reimbursement should not have been denied. The Medical Attendance Rules are intended to facilitate the reimbursement process, not to impose unnecessary procedural hurdles. The case of petitioner, being fully documented and verified, was fit for approval. The rejection, therefore, is manifestly arbitrary, unjust, and violative of both statutory and constitutional safeguards. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: The Proper Treatment of Covid 19 Patients and Dignified Handling of Dead Bodies in the Hospitals (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2020) decided on 19-6-2020 has held that right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasoned, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The same is hereby set aside. 18. The respondents are directed to sanction the medical reimbursement claim of petitioner of Rs. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasoned, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The same is hereby set aside. 18. The respondents are directed to sanction the medical reimbursement claim of petitioner of Rs. 54,848/- pertaining to the treatment of his minor son at Makhija Pediatric and Neonatology Surgery Center, Bilaspur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 19. The Court further observes that in matters of medical reimbursement, the authorities must adopt a humane and pragmatic approach, keeping in mind that the health and life of an employee or his dependent cannot be subjected to procedural rigidity. 20.The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.