IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.2871/2008 Decided on:4.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Highly Qualified (After 1979) Primary Teachers Union and another. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Bharti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioners had filed original application for the redressal of their grievance by filing O.A. No. 1730/1993. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Financial Commissioner (Education). The same has been rejected by him on 17.2.1994 without a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the orders/decision by the administrative/executive authority/quasi judicial authority must be speaking. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 have held as under: “13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.” Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order dated 17.2.1994 annexed alongwith Annexure A-5 is quashed and set 3 aside. The Principle Secretary (Education) is directed to decide the representation afresh by taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken in the representation as well as the case law cited therein. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The representatives of the petitioners’ union shall also be heard in person after notifying the date of hearing to them. No costs. Copy Dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 4.8.2010 *awasthi*