IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11277 of 2008 Decided on: 23.12.2010 Brij Lal Bhardwaj …Petitioner Versus 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. Raj Kumar, Advocate vice counsel. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl, Advocate General with Mr. Anil Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner has assailed the issuance of Annexure A-6, dated 20.10.2003. The same is neither speaking nor reasoned. Once the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Secretary(Ayurveda), the same should have been decided by passing a speaking or detailed order after hearing the petitioner personally and taking into consideration the pleas and grounds taken in the original application/representation. 2. Consequently, Annexure A-6, dated 20.10.203 is quashed and set aside. The Secretary (Ayurveda) is directed to take a fresh decision on representation by passing a speaking/reasoned/detailed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 3. With these observations/directions, the present petition is disposed of. No costs. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 23, 2010 (K. Attri)