IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12147 of 2008. Decided on: 16.3.2011 Tek Chand Shandil ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B & others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance. The same has been decided by the Secretary of the respondent-Board, without passing a speaking/detailed order, on 27th December, 2004. Once the representation has been made by the petitioner, the same ought to have been decided by passing a speaking order, after taking into consideration all the grounds/pleas taken in the representation. 2. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Annexure A-16, dated 27th December, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The Secretary of the respondent-Board is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh, by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment by the petitioner. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. petitioner shall be heard in person and for that purpose, the date shall be notified to him separately. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 16, 2011. (hl)