IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 338 of 2008. Date of decision 25.5.2009. Jaind Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Lekh Ram and others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner M/S Bimal Gupta and K.S.Kanwar, Advocates. For respondent No. 1 Mr.N.K.Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 4 Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner in Appeal No. 1 of 2008 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in case No. 7 of 2006. An appeal was preferred under Section 181 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the Act) setting aside the election of the petitioner herein on the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - ground that the wife of the petitioner was an encroacher on government land and he was, therefore, not qualified to contest election of Member, Zila Parishad since he had incurred disqualification under Section 222(1) (c) of the Act. The Commissioner framed two questions, namely whether the Deputy Commissioner was competent to hear and decide the election petition filed before him and whether the wife of the petitioner herein was an encroacher on government land or not. On both questions, the appeal has been decided against the petitioner herein. While disposing of the appeal, the learned Commissioner has not given any reasons. It is by now well settled that reasons are the heart and soul of any order and a statutory authority is bound to give reasons for its decision. It is not the quantity of reasons but it is the quality which is to be considered. Merely saying that the adjudicatory /appellate authority agrees or disagrees with the findings arrived at is not sufficient unless some reasons are given showing as to how and under what circumstances the submissions made by one party or the other deserve to be - 3 - rejected. Reasons assigned need not be elaborate as reiterated by the Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, but they should be such as can reasonably convey to the person that there has been proper application of mind. (See The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and another, AIR 1976 SC 1785). I do not find from the reading of the judgment that reasons are ascertainable. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside and a direction is issued that the case shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Commissioner shall grant adequate opportunity to both the parties to represent their case and shall dispose it of with a speaking order. Parties shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on 3.7.2009. This order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 25, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.