Civil Writ Petition No. 17855 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17855 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.03.2010 Hari Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Moninder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-11) whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 1,62,851.12 paisa as loss caused to the Gram Panchayat, Muradgarh. The petitioner remained Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat, Muradgarh from the year 2000 to 2005. During this period, he is stated to have caused certain loss to the Gram Panchayat, Muradgarh. For this a show-cause-notice was issued to him and he filed reply to the same. The matter ultimately came up before this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19323 of 2006 which was disposed of on 04.11.2008 with a direction to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to take a decision in the matter after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties within three months. It was further observed that in case an adverse order is passed, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Civil Writ Petition No. 17855 of 2009 2 that order, Annexure P-11 is non-speaking in nature as it does not contain any reasons for the findings arrived at by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. This factual averment is not dispute by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat. Both the counsel are agreed that the matter be remanded back to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer for a decision afresh. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the order Annexure P-11 clearly shows that the same contains no reasons for arriving at a finding that the loss of Rs. 1,62,851.12 paisa had been caused to the Gram Panchayat. The order is absolutely non-speaking. It discloses no reason whatsoever for the findings arrived at. The apex court in case reported as M.J. Sivani Vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 6 SCC 289 held as follows:- “32. It is also settled law that the order need not contain detailed reasons like a court order. Administrative order itself may contain reasons or the file may disclose reasons to arrive at the decision showing application of mind to the facts in issue. It would be discernible from the reasons stated in the order or the contemporaneous record. Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. When rules direct to record reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for valid order. Appropriate brief reasons, though not like a judgment are a necessary concomitant for a valid order in support of the action or decision taken by the authority or its instrumentality or the State. Normally it must be communicated to the affected party so that he may have an opportunity to have it tested in an appropriate forum.” Civil Writ Petition No. 17855 of 2009 3 Under the circumstances, this court is left with no option but to set-aside the order Annexure P-11. The matter is remitted back to the same authority for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The parties are directed to remain present before the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 23.04.2010. It is made clear that in case still aggrieved, it will be open to the petitioner to avail of remedy, if any, available under provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Allowed in aforesaid terms. March 30, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE