BASAVARAJU Vs. COMMISSIONER HUNSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the operative portion of the order of the deputy commissioner does not disclose the reasons in support of the findings. After holding that the assistant commissioner has afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the deputy commissioner has proceeded to reject the appeal and to confirm the order of the assistant commissioner without taking pains to apply his mind and to review the impugned order of the assistant commissioner on merits. The approach of the deputy commissioner is lackadaisical. It is not a speaking order. When the order does not speak, the presumption would be that the decision making authority has no reasons to assign. If there are no reasons to give, then the order cannot be sustained.

(2.) i, therefore, allow the writ petition in part and quash the impugned order of the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner is directed to hear the appeal afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to the appeal and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order giving findings on the following points:

(3.) the parties to this case are required to appear before the deputy commissioner on 18-10-1989 and the learned counsel appearing for the parties shall duly intimate the date of hearing to the concerned parties. No fresh notice is warranted from the deputy commissioner in this regard.