IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8007 of 2008 Decided on: 24.12.2010 Saran Dass …Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner had approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1528 of 2000. The same was directed to be treated as representation to respondent No. 2, i.e. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, vide order dated 28.4.2000. He had decided the same on 28.6.2000. The case of the petitioner, in a nut- shell, is that the petitioner ought to have been heard by respondent No. 2, while deciding the representation. 2. The Court is of the considered view that in view of the pleadings, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to explain his case with the help of the grounds taken in the original application. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 28.4.2000 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation afresh after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall be notified date of hearing. This process shall be completed within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 24, 2010 (K. Attri)