IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2469 of 2008. Decided on: 07.05.2010. __________________________________________________________ Shri Rup Singh Bhatti. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has made a representation against office order No.360 dated 7th February, 1995. The same has been rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 23rd February, 1995 (Annexure A-2). A bare perusal of this order reveals that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. It is well settled by now that any order which has civil consequences must be supported by cogent reasons. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 23rd February, 1995 is quashed and set aside. The Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation is directed to decide the representation afresh by a speaking 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - order after hearing the petitioner. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 07, 2010. (sck).