[jps50]

I append Supreme Court Judgement of REASONING, which I downloaded from this site only. I hope it would be relevant to quote while asking reasons in RTI applications

Failure to give reasons is denial of justice

“Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a system” “Reasons at least … indicate an application of mind”

New Delhi: Observing that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice, the Supreme Court has asked High Courts to give reasons in their judgments or orders.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia said, “ the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 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.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said, right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. 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.”
In the instant case Dayaram challenged the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by Raghunath relating to allotment lands by the State government to landless people. The grievance of the appellant in the special leave petition was that no reasons were given in the order passed by the High Court in September 2003.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said, “ the specific stand before the authority was that the respondent was not a landless person and, therefore, he was not entitled to be allotted any land. There is no reference to this aspect in the order.

On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of application of mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s order not sustainable.” The Bench set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the High Court.