IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10312 of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Dharam Chand. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): The petitioner has already preferred an appeal for the redressal of his grievance. The same has been rejected vide Annexure A-14, dated 20th February, 2003. A bare perusal of Annexure A-14 reveals that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. Once the petitioner has preferred an appeal, the appellate authority was required to pass a speaking and detailed order after taking into consideration all the grounds/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-14, dated 20th February, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - directed to hear and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, within a period of two months after production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2010. (sck).