IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP. No.883 of 2006. Date of Decision : May 3,2010. Jagdish Chand. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure: PD passed by the ALR-cum-Under Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the case of the petitioner herein for appointment of Notary Public. Without entering into the merits of the case, the order under challenge Annexure: PD which is rejection of the case of the petitioner may be noted. The order states:- “Your application for appointment of Notary Public at Arki Sub Division of District Solan has been considered by the Government and rejected” There is no denying the fact that this is a non- speaking and non-reasoned order. It cannot be sustained 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 under any circumstances. Mere use of word ‘rejected’ is not sufficient in law to grant legality to the order which is otherwise a terse one line order. In these circumstances, this order is quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to determine the matter afresh and to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He will take into consideration the material filed with this writ petition. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard before any such order is passed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 3,2010(R)