Himachal Pradesh High Court
Asha Kumari vs State Of H.P. & Others on 4 May, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 325 of 2017 Date of Decision: 4.5.2017 .
Asha Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? yes _________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent-
State.
Per Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge(oral) Though, reply has not been filed to this writ petition, however, taking into consideration the short controversy involved in this case, the same is being disposed of with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order passed by Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala, dated 22.10.2016, Annexure P-6, vide which the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala rejected the case of the petitioner for release of route permit. Though, admittedly there is alternative remedy available with the petitioner for assailing the impugned order, however, this Court is invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction without relegating the present ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2017 23:57:29 :::HCHP 2 petitioner to the appellate authority in view of the fact that prima-facie, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and the same, thus, is liable to be set aside. On this count alone, .
no fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the present petitioner to the appellate authority when in all probabilities, even learned appellate authority has no option, but to quash the impugned order on the ground that the same is a non-
speaking order and remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala for adjudication afresh. In these circumstances, this Court is deciding the present petition on merit.
3. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala by passing the following order:
"In compliance to orders of Court, R.T.A. in its meeting on 22.10.2016 considered the application of Smt. Asha Kumari (through G.P.A. holder of Sh.Hakam Singh) for the release of route permit (with modification as allowed in the year 2000). All the facts related to the case were examined. The R.T.A. finally decided to cancel."
4. It is settled law that an authority be it, quasi judicial authority or otherwise, while adjudicating upon the rights of the parties has to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The conclusion arrived at by the authority should be decipherable from the reasoning mentioned in the order. If the same is lacking, then the order so passed by the authority, cannot be 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2017 23:57:29 :::HCHP 3 sustained in the eyes of law. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the same is neither reasoned nor a speaking order. It cannot be inferred from the contents of the .
impugned order as to what weighed with the authorities while rejecting the case of the petitioner. In this view of matter, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Therefore, the impugned order, Annexure P-6, dated 22.10.2016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned with a direction to decide the case of the petitioner afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Needful be done within two months from today. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 4, 2017 (kalpana) 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2017 23:57:29 :::HCHP