IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 12043 of 2008. Decided on: 3rd June, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Ram Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate vice Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Adovocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order dated 07.08.2004. The same has been rejected by the Divisional Manager, H.R.T.C., Shimla vide Annexure A-6, dated 24th March, 2005 without passing a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the appellate order must be speaking/reasoned. The appellate authority should also take into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 24th March, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking/detailed order, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given personal hearing, for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - which he shall be notified the date of hearing separately. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 03, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `