IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11679 of 2008 Decided on: 23rd December, 2010. Nalini Bali. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the respondents. : None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had treated the Original Application No. 1962 of 2004 filed by the petitioner as representation to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation. The same has been rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure A-14 and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 31.12.2004. The order passed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation is neither speaking nor detailed. Once the learned Tribunal has directed the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation, the same ought to have been decided by passing a speaking/reasoned order, that too after taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds contained in the Original Application/representation. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A- 14, dated 31.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. The Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation is directed to decide the representation afresh after taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken therein by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith respondent No. 3 shall be heard in person by the Board of Directors. Till the afresh decision is taken by the Board of Directors on the representation, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 23, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -