IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8739/2008 Decided on:29.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Niram Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance on 18.11.1999, as per Annexure A-8. The same has been rejected vide Annexure A-9 dated 29.9.1999 without a speaking order. The representation was required to be considered and decided by passing a speaking order. The authority was required to take into consideration all the points raised in the representation dated 18.11.1999. 2. Consequently, Annexure A-9 dated 29.9.1999 is quashed and set aside. Commissioner-cum-Secretary 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 (Panchayati Raj) is directed to decide the representation afresh by passing a speaking order. Petitioner shall also be heard in person, if so desired by him, and for that purpose date shall be notified to him. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.12.2010 *awasthi*