IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 22 of 2003 Date of decision: 13.5.2008 Sadhu Ram Petitioner. Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For respondent No. 2 & 3 Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 11.4.2002 passed in case No. 73/98. The main grievance of Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petition has been disposed of by a non-speaking order. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “The case came up for hearing today in the presence of Shri Sadhu Ram applicant and Anant Ram, Achharu Ram respondents. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The perusal of the record shows that 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. no illegality or impropriety has been committed with the applicant during consolidation because he has been allotted land according to the provisions of the scheme. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the order of the Courts below. Hence, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The stay granted on 29.6.1998 shall stand vacated.” The perusal of the aforesaid shows that there is non-application of mind by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. He has not considered the arrival contention of the parties. All that he has stated is that on the perusal of the record he has come to the conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety has been committed since the land has been allotted according to the provisions of the scheme. A judicial order must be couched in language stating the reasons which have weighed with the Officer while passing the order. Merely stating the conclusions is not sufficient. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that reasons are the essence of any judicial order. A bare reading of the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, shows that there was no effort made to analyse the various points raised. It is not necessary in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to give detailed facts of the case. However, reference must be made to the relevant portion of the scheme, contentions of the parties and whether the order of the Officer which is under challenge is legal or not. The questions involved was not trivial. Rights of the parties are involved. The Director of Consolidation was required to give reasons, which he has failed to do so. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Without reasons, it is impossible for this Court to adjudicate as to whether the order of the Director is correct or not. Since this has not been done, the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, cannot be sustained and the same is set- aside. Copy of this judgement be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh who shall convey the same to all the Administrative Officer exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers so that they are aware that they are required to give reasons while delivering judicial and quasi judicial orders. The Case is remanded to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who shall decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 17th June, 2008. The Director, Consolidation shall make an earnest endeavour to decide the revision petition as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st December, 2008. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, after remand shall decide the case on its own merits. 13th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™