AYUDHYA BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had approached before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 334 of 2001 for the redressal of her grievance. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Education), Government of H.P.. He rejected the same on 2nd May, 2001 without a speaking order. Once the learned Tribunal had directed the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Education), Government of H.P. to decide the representation, he ought to have considered all the points taken in the Original Application and the legal submissions contained therein. It is settled law by now that the orders/decision by the administrative/executive authority/quasi judicial authority must be speaking/reasoned.

(2.) THEIR lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 have held as under: