IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4015 of 2008. Decided on 3rd September, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Kashmiri Lal. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for other respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance. However, the same has been rejected by the competent authority vide Annexure A-7, dated 28.09.1994 without a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the orders/decision by the administrative/executive authority/quasi judicial authority must be speaking/reasoned. 2. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 have held as under: “13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.” 3. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 28.09.1994 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh by passing a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It shall open to the petitioner to place additional material on record for proper adjudication of the representation. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 3rd September, 2010. (bhupender)