C.W.P. No.8966 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8966 of 1988 Date of Decision.05.03.2010 Sh. Amarjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with H.Q. At Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed in revision filed at the instance of the 2nd respondent-Society. The order of the Appellate Authority had been modified to make liable the petitioner also, apart from Labh Singh, who had been found liable already by the Appellate Authority. While disposing of the revision and modifying the order of the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent has observed as follows: “I have heard the representative present and seen the relevant record. I am of the view that the appellate order has not been passed, keeping in view the evidence produced by the society. I, therefore, accept the revision petition setting aside the impugned appellate C.W.P. No.8966 of 1988 -2- order and uphold the Award. The costs being on the high side reduced to Rs.250/- from each.” 2. It can be noticed that there is absolutely no form of reasoning as to how and why the decision of the Appellate Authority was set aside. The Appellate Authority had actually exonerated the petitioner and if a modification of this order became necessary, it could not have been done without reference to the merits urged by the respective parties on whether the petitioner ought to have been also found responsible for the loss caused to the society. The order of the Revisional Authority, which is under challenge in this Court, is set aside. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration with reference to the alleged guilt of the petitioner, who was arrayed as the 3rd respondent before him. Having regard to the fact that the case relates to a dispute of the year 1977 and the order which was the subject of revision itself had been passed in the year 1987, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall dispose of the revision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The decision shall be taken after serving of the notice on all the affected parties. 3. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 05, 2010 Pankaj*