UDAI VEER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel as well as Sri B. K. Singh appear ing as standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. Facts need not be stated as this petition is being decided on short point. Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 30-9- 2000 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition ).

(2.) PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr has not referred to any docu ment or material on record which it ac cepted or rejected while arriving at the conclusion. Respondent No. 1 has reached to the conclusion without applying mind which is not permissible. The order is not a speaking order and does not contain reasons and relevant material for the benefit of the High Court or the higher authority to assess that the authority con cerned has applied mind to the relevant material on record in the instant case. The impugned order lacks reasons and is liable to be set aside.