Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The common challenge in these writ petitions is against a hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board in relation to Sree Chirakkal Bhagavathy Temple, Annakkara. The said notice is marked as Ext.P6 in W.P(C).No.28922 of 2021, which is one issued pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case. In Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, Ext.P1 order dated 23.02.2021 of the 1st respondent-Commissioner was ordered to be treated as a show cause notice and the Commissioner was directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Paragraph 6 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

“6. When the Writ Petitions came up for consideration today, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that since the case of the petitioners is that Ext.P4 order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to them, the first respondent will reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh after notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in such event, the petitioners shall be permitted to raise all factual and legal contentions before the first respondent and the first respondent shall pass a speaking order taking note of their contentions, within a time frame.

In the light of the submissions made as above, there will be a direction that Ext.P4 shall be treated as a show cause notice and a copy of the same shall be served by the 1st respondent on the seniormost male member of each of the 5 thavazhis. The list of the seniormost male member of the 5 thavazhis shall be furnished by one among the petitioners to the first respondent along with a certified copy of the judgment within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The 1st respondent shall serve copy of Ext.P4 on these members within three weeks thereafter by specifying time for showing cause. The first respondent shall consider all legal and factual contentions of the members who respond to the notice as aforesaid and afford opportunity of hearing to them and take a fresh decision in accordance with law, untrammeled by any findings in Ext.P4, expeditiously. With these directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Needless to say, since Ext.P4 is only to be treated as a show cause notice, the same shall not be enforced.”

2. In W.P(C)No.28922 of 2021, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the findings on the merits of the case contained in Ext.P6 hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent-Commissioner. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent-Commissioner to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder; a declaration that a notice is nothing but an intimation regarding the posting of a proceeding and it should not contain any remark or finding about the merit of the case pending before the 1st respondent-Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the maintainability of Ext.P1 show cause notice as a preliminary issue in an unbiased manner. Ext.P6 hearing notice, which is under challenge in W.P(C)No.28922 of 2021 reads thus:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

3. The aforesaid hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 is marked as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.28872 of 2021. In that writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the findings on the merits of the case contained in Ext.P7 hearing notice. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent-Commissioner to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder; a declaration that a notice is nothing but an intimation regarding the posting of a proceeding and it should not contain any remark or finding about the merit of the case pending before the 1st respondent- Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the maintainability of Ext.P2 order/show cause notice dated 03.21.2021 of the 1st respondent-Commissioner as a preliminary issue, in an unbiased manner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the respondents.

5. The grievance of the petitioner in the respective writ petitions is that, contrary to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, the 1st respondent-Commissioner has issued a hearing notice dated 23.02.2021 in which he has already decided the issue by stating as follows;

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." (underline supplied)

6. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that, a reading of the aforesaid notice dated 23.02.2021 would make it explicitly clear that, it is only a hearing notice issued by the 1st respondent-Commissioner regarding the personal hearing scheduled to be held on 16.12.2021 at 11.00 a.m. The Commissioner is yet to take a decision in the matter, after considering the contentions raised by the affected parties.

7. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the specific direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case is to treat the order dated 23.02.2021 of the 1st respondent- Commissioner as a show cause notice and to take an appropriate decision in the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Pursuant to the direction contained in the said judgment, the Commissioner issued the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021. The subject of the said notice reads as follows;

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

8. Since the aforesaid notice is only a hearing notice issued by the 1st respondent-Commissioner, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P. (C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, the Commissioner is yet to take a decision in the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board. However, in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petition, we deem it appropriate to order deletion of the following sentence in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner;

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

9. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [(1971) 1 All. E.R. 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.

10. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364] held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance.

11. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605] that undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/ functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

12. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.

13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, any order passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner in the matter, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as provided in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021, must be founded upon the reasons stated therein, reflecting application of mind by the Commissioner to the legal and factual contentions raised by the affected parties, including any preliminary issue on the maintainability of the show cause notice dated 23.02.2021. In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of by deleting the sentence"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent-Commissioner, and by directing the Commissioner to pass orders in the matter, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P. (C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as provided in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021. The order to be passed by the Commissioner must be founded upon the reasons stated therein, reflecting application of mind by the Commissioner to the legal and factual contentions raised by the affected parties, including any preliminary issue on the maintainability of the show cause notice dated 23.02.2021.