IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8361 of 2008. Decided on: 15.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance. The same was rejected initially without a speaking order on 14th June, 1999 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter another representation made by the petitioner was also rejected without passing a speaking order, dated 24th February, 2001 (Annexure A-7). Once the petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance, the same ought to have been considered in accordance with law. A speaking order was required to be passed after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas raised in the representation. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-5, dated 14th June, 1999 and A-7, dated 24th February, 2001 are quashed and set aside. The Secretary (Ayurveda) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be informed the date of hearing separately. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 15, 2010. (sck).