IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21432 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 01, 2010. National Welfare Health and Education Awareness Charitable Society. .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.4 & 5 nor any counter reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 is needed at this stage. The petitioner claims itself to be a Charitable Society and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur directing it to make good the deficiency in Stamp Duty charges amounting to Rs.2,53,125/-, as well as the order dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above- C.W.P.No .21432 of 2010 2 mentioned order of the Collector. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has turned down its appeal by passing a totally non-speaking order. It is contended and righty so that the petitioner has raised specific pleas before the Appellate Authority which are noticed in para-3 of the impugned order but none of those have been dealt with while deciding the appeal which has been dismissed merely after observing that the order passed by the Collector is a speaking order and calls for no interference. True it is that precision is an art but it does not absolve a judicial/quasi-judicial authority from meeting out the issues raised before it. The Appellate Authority was obligated to disclose those reasons which prompted it to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-7) is set-aside and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to it and by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. December 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE