IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.3972 of 2010. Date of decision: 30.09.2010. Kishan Chand … … …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. & Others … … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The prayer made in this writ petition by the petitioner is for the grant of following relief(s):- “(i) That writ petition in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondents by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2006, Annexure P-2 and the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner dated 24.03.2007, Annexure P-7 and the rejection of representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2010, Annexure P-6. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents to re- engage the petitioner against the post of TMPA with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner with a speaking order and petitioner may be heard personally while deciding his representation/appeal. (iv) Direct the production of all the relevant records. (v) Allow any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (vi) Allow the cost of the petition.” 2. It is undisputed before me that the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was rejected vide Annexure P-6 stating that it is barred by time. Prior to that Annexure P-7 was issued informing the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed. 3. The order of rejection is a non-speaking order which has been passed by the appellate Authority. In these circumstances, it is directed that the appellate Authority shall reconsider the appeal of the petitioner and shall dispose it of by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter. In similar circumstances, this Court had issued 3 a direction to the same effect in CWP No.3116 of 2010, titled: Kishore Kumar vs. H.R.T.C. and Others on 17.6.2010. This Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. It is expected that the proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. September 30, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.