CWP Nos. 1197 of 2001 & 19 of 2002. CWP 1197 of 2001. 15.3.2010 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 5. CWP 19 of 2002. Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, counsel for respondent No. 4. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they challenge the same order of the Director of Consolidation exercising powers under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order is in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and fundamentals of statutory adjudication which requires not only the application of mind of the adjudicator but also manifestation of the reasons in the order to show that the authority has applied mind to the facts of the case. The Director Consolidation while exercising power under Section 54 has -2- disposed of the petition instituted by Sh. Gian Chand before him on the solitary ground that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings has decided the case after visiting the spot and has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion and, therefore, the order does not require any modification / change. This is not a satisfactory way of adjudicating a lis. Needless to say that application of mind has to be by the authority adjudicating and not by anybody else. Even if he has to agree with the reasons given by the authority subordinate to him, there must be some indication in the order as to how and on what grounds the order is being upheld which implies that the authority must indicate with certainty and clarity that the grounds set out or points urged before him for varying the order are not made out. Merely writing “the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings has decided the case after visiting the spot and he has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion” do not constitute reasons but is pre judgmental and not sufficient to meet the requirements of law. In these circumstances, both these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order of the Director Consolidation in -3- both the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. The Statutory Authority under Section 54 of the Act as aforesaid is directed to take up the case again for decision afresh in accordance with law. This order does not in any manner pronounce on the merits of the respective contentions of the parties as urged before the Director as also on facts before this Court as I have only decided on the question of legality of the order. Parties shall be free to urge and put forth their respective cases before the Director of Consolidation to show whether the petition is maintainable or the order challenged can be sustained in law. Parties shall appear before the Director of Consolidation on 7.4.2010. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications shall stand disposed of and interim orders vacated. March 15, 2010 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.