IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5549 of 2008. Decided on: 02.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Surat Chand Mahajan. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 to 5 ex-parte. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has already made a representation dated 8thJuly, 1998 (Annexure A-7) for redressal of his grievance. The same has been rejected by a non-speaking order by the Director of Agriculture vide order dated 18th August, 1998 (Annexure A-9). It is settled law by now that any administrative or quasi-judicial orders passed by the competent authority must be speaking and detailed. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-9, dated 18th August, 1998 is quashed and set aside. The Director of Agriculture is directed to decide the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure A-7 afresh by a speaking order, within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 02, 2010. (sck).