IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 994 of 2007. Date of Decision: 1st May, 2008. Baldev Singh ….. Petitioner. Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings & others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings in case No. 288 of 1992 dated 21.6.2006 on a petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act) 1971. It is undisputed before me that the Additional Director was exercising statutory power in dealing with the revision petition, 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - which was instituted before him. The order passed Annexure P-1 is neither speaking nor reasoned. Even in case of affirmance of the order/judgment passed by the statutory authority against whose order revision of the appeal is preferred, substantive reasons have to be given in accepting or rejecting the petition. Of course, elaborate reasons are not required but none the less there should be such which can stand the scrutiny of judicial review. The order Ext. P-1 is not a speaking or reasoned order. A terse two lines observation that the petition does not have any merit, cannot be treated as a speaking order and such practice needs to be condemned. It is by now well settled that a reasoned decision is the core of the principles of natural justice and must be observed without any exception. See: Nibaran Chandra Bag, v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu (deceased), after him his heir and legal representative (AIR 1963 SC 1895); M/S Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. The Union of India and others (AIR 1971 SC 862); The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and another (AIR 1976 SC 1785); Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.Ratna and others (AIR 1987 SC 71) and Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and another (2004) 13 SCC 234. This revision is accordingly allowed. The order of the Director Consolidation Annexure P-1 is quashed and set aside . A direction is issued to the Director Consolidation- respondent No. 1 to readmit the matter on its file. He will proceed to decide the revision in accordance with law and in conformity with the directions issued - 3 - hereinabove. On receipt of this order, he shall issue notice to the parties and shall thereafter proceed to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible and not later than 31st December, 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. 1st May, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.