GIAN CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr.J.R.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Chandel, learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.6. I have also perused the impugned order.

(2.) A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly suggests that respondent No.6 has set aside, while exercising his appellate jurisdiction under sub- section (3) of Section 12 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the orders dated 9th May, 2003 and 26th May, 2003 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Nanawan, in an absolutely slipshod manner, apparently and manifestly without any application of mind and of course without assigning any supporting reasons at all. Paras 1 to 10 of the impugned judgment contain narration of the facts and the grounds of challenge. Paras 2 and 3 (of course numbered wrongly) occurring after the aforesaid para 10 are the paras which indicate the process of consideration leading to the setting aside of the impugned order in the aforesaid appeal. Paras 2 and 3 read thus:-

(3.) MR .Chandel, learned Advocate General submits that the best course of action would be to set aside the order, to give an opportunity to respondent No.6 to reconsider the entire matter and pass a fresh order in the light of the aforesaid observations made by this Court. Mr.Thakur has no objection to this course being adopted.