IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10177 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 20, 2010. Puneet Kakkar and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion . Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the fact that challenge in this writ petition pertains to quasi-judicial orders, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 5.9.2008, 17.7.2009, 3.8.2008 and 10.2.2010 (Annexures P-3, P-4, P-4/1 & P-5 respectively) whereby they have been asked to affix additional stamp duty in respect of sale deed No.5228 dated 4.9.2009 executed in their favour by the Punjab Financial Corporation and their appeal against the said order of C.W.P.No .10177 of 2010 2 the Collector, Jalandhar, has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the order dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, respondent No.2, is cryptic, non-speaking and laconic which does not deal with any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be apposite to reproduce the concluding paragraph of the Appellate Authority's order dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) which reads as follows:- “......I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the papers brought on file. Harsaroop Singh Advocate argued the case at length. He has not pleaded in his grounds of appeal what he is arguing. Nothing has been written in the pleadings to rebut the Collector's orders. No merits in the case. There is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.” Suffice it to observe that in addition to the grounds taken in the memorandum of Appeal, an appellant can raise certain legal contentions which need not be specifically pleaded in the Memo of Appeal. Similarly, an appellant needs not urge all the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and may give up them in all or part. The Appellate Authority is obligated to take note of the contentions raised before it and express its views in relation thereto, so as to enable the next superior C.W.P.No .10177 of 2010 3 Forum to understand as to what prevailed in the mind of the Appellate Authority. Unfortunately, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, while deciding the petitioners' appeal. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part and the Appellate Authority's order dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar to hear and decide the petitioners' appeal afresh and in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. July 20, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE