IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10121of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2010. Dr.Sant Ram Pathik. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal, Pradesh and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner. : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent No.1 and2 : Mr. Lokender Thakur,Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) It is apparent from the Annexure PA dated 3rd May, 2003 that a representation made by the petitioner has been rejected without passing a speaking order. Once the petitioner has made the representation, the same ought to have been considered in view of the grounds taken in the representation. Thereafter, a speaking/detailed order was required to be passed. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure PA dated 3rd May, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to re-hear and decide the representation within a period of two months after production of certified copy of this judgment. Incase, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No representation made is acceded to, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) December 23, 2010. Judge (krt)