IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.: 70 of 2008. Decided on: 13.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Sukh Ram Chandel. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): The petitioner has already made a representation, dated 3.7.2000 to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure A-4, for the redressal of his grievance. Same has been rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 29th July, 2000 (Annexure A-6) without a speaking order. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 29th July, 2000 is quashed and aside. The representation made by the petitioner now be decided by the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation afresh by passing a speaking order by taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person and for that purpose the date will be separately notified. It is made clear that till the decision of the representation, recovery may not be effected from the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 13, 2010. (sck).