1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2297 OF 2009 Leela Kishor Mani & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Rajan Chandru Mani & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. J.J. Nankani i/b Mr. M.G. Gawde for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Bhandary i/b Bhandary & Bhandary for respondent no.1. Mr. Bomi Patel i/b Rumi H. Mirza for respondent no.2. Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for respondent nos.4 to 6. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Bhandary waives service for respondent no.1. Mr. Mirza waives service for respondent no.2. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent nos.4 to 6. Respondent no.3 is a formal party and service of Rule on him is dispensed with. 3. So far as respondent nos.7 and 8 are concerned, they are daughters of the petitioner no.1. Counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent nos.7 and 8 support the petitioners and they have been joined as formal parties. In 2 view of this, service of Rule on respondent nos.7 and 8 is dispensed with. 4. Heard. 5. The impugned order was passed on 18 October 2008 by the appellate authority being Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum- Custodian Evacuee Properties, Maharashtra State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not a reasoned order. The appellate authority has not given any reasons for confirming the decision of the original authority. He took me through the order. In the first two pages of the order, the appellate authority has narrated only the admitted facts and in the third page has disposed of the appeal by observing: “It is seen that in this case no any fresh evidence has been filed by the petitioners or the respondents with this Authority. Therefore, I agree with the decision taken by the Managing Officer, Mumbai City.” It may be noted that as an appellate authority, he was 3 required to marshal the evidence and come to his own conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced before the original authority. He could not dismiss the appeal only on the ground that no additional or fresh evidence was adduced before him. There is no marshalling of the facts and no reappreciation of the evidence. The order is not a speaking order in the sense that it does not consider the evidence adduced before the original authority at all. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is required to be set aside and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority with a direction to hear the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. Interim order dated 3 June 2008 read with order dated 30 March 2009 shall remain in force till the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)