Civil Writ Petition No. 14215 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14215 of 2009 Date of decision : 31.03.2010 Jaswant Rai, Sarpanch ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 09.01.2009, Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No. 2 as well as order dated 13.07.2009, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby it was decided to remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P-1 passed by appellate authority is totally non-speaking in nature. According to him, the appellate authority had merely dismissed the appeal by observing that the petitioner was careless inasmuch as he had misplaced the record of the Gram Panchayat, Landhran. According to him, the appellate authority had neither referred to the nature of record which was mis-placed nor gone into the issue whether same could be reconstructed. This apart, learned counsel submits that elected representative of the residents of the village cannot be removed on flimsy Civil Writ Petition No. 14215 of 2009 2 grounds. He, therefore, submits that appellate order be set-aside and the case be remanded back to the same authority for a decision afresh. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer for remand of the case to the same authority for decision afresh. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that in the impugned order, the appellate authority has not gone into the matter in detail. Neither there is any reference to nature of record which was misplaced nor there is discussion with regard to possibility of reconstruction of same. The petitioner who is elected representative of the residents of the village has been ordered to be removed on the ground being careless. The order is non-speaking and therefore, unsustainable. The apex court in case reported as M.J. Sivani Vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 6 SCC 289 held as follows:- “32. It is also settled law that the order need not contain detailed reasons like a court order. Administrative order itself may contain reasons or the file may disclose reasons to arrive at the decision showing application of mind to the facts in issue. It would be discernible from the reasons stated in the order or the contemporaneous record. Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. When rules direct to record reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for valid order. Appropriate brief reasons, though not like a judgment are a necessary concomitant for a valid order in support of the action or decision taken by the authority or its instrumentality or the State. Normally it must be communicated to the affected party so that he may have an opportunity to have it tested in an appropriate forum.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the order Annexure P-1 appears to be non-speaking in nature, this Civil Writ Petition No. 14215 of 2009 3 court is left with no option but to set-aside the same. The matter is remitted back to the same authority for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The parties are directed to remain present before the said authority on 21.04.2010. Allowed in aforesaid terms. March 31, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE