CWP No.8211 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8211 of 1996 Date of Decision: 5.8.2008 Surjit Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, Jalandhar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. M.L.S aini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this writ petition is, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.2.1996, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, dismissing a petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, asserting that the earlier order dated 14.5.1991, passed under Section 42 of the Act and the order dated 22.12.1992 passed under Section 21(2) of the Act were passed ex-parte and as there was no deficiency in the land allotted to the respondents, the said orders be set aside. It was further asserted that the Consolidation Officer has allotted 43 K 7 M of land instead of 4 K 10 M. It was also pointed out that the respondents had filed a petition under CWP No.8211 of 1996 2 Section 42 of the Act, but the same was not disclosed by the respondents in their petition filed under Section 42 of the Act. After hearing counsel for the parties, the petition was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, should be set aside, as the order is non-speaking. It does not refer to the arguments advanced for and against the respective pleas, does not disclose a process of reasoning or assign any reasons for dismissal of the petitioners application. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a quasi judicial authority is not required to pass a detailed order and the mere absence of a detailed reference to the facts and arguments, would not render the impugned order illegal or void. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that after a brief reference to arguments, the Additional Director, dismissed the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, by holding as follows :- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record I agree with the arguments advance by the counsel for the respondent and find no merits in the case and the same is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.” As is apparent from the above extract, the Additional Director has failed to set out any reasons for the conclusions, namely; that he agrees CWP No.8211 of 1996 3 with the arguments advanced by counsel for the respondents and finds no merit in the case. A quasi judicial authority, unlike a Court, is not required to write a judgement, assigning detailed and intricate reasons for its conclusions. This, however, does not absolve a quasi judicial authority, more particularly, where it is the final authority under a statute, from passing a speaking order. The words 'speaking order' inher in the authority, an obligation to briefly refer to the facts and the arguments addressed for and against the cause and thereafter by a clear, cogent and discernible process of reasoning, accept or reject the contentions urged in favour or against the pending lis. The impugned order, in my considered opinion, does not satisfy the requirements of a quasi judicial order and must, therefore, be set aside. Conscious of the fact that the writ petition has been pending since the year 1996, an attempt was made, with assistance of counsel for the parties, to decide the writ petition on merits. However, as adjudication of the petitioners' claim with respect to wrong allotment of land to the respondents would involve reference to the scheme, the reservation of land during consolidation, the allotment in respect thereof, the Khasra numbers in possession etc., there is no option, in the absence of relevant record, but to set aside the impugned order and remit the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, for adjudication afresh to the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 28.2.1996 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab,Jalandhar. The Additional Director, CWP No.8211 of 1996 4 Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, is directed to decide the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, on 8.9.2008. 5.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE