IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 9356 of 2008. Decided on 8th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Balbir Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh & Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. Respondents No. 3 to 5 are already exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has already made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for the redressal of his grievance pertaining to the seniority list issued in 2001 vide Annexure A- 15. However, the same has been rejected by him on 27th March, 2003 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 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law 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-17, dated 27th March, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan is directed to re-consider the - 3 - representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure A-15, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken therein. Since the dispute pertains to the seniority, the petitioner as well as private respondents shall be heard in person and for that purpose notices be issued to them separately. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 08, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 - `