MANGAN URAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6, though, Vakalatnama has been filed on his. behalf. No counter affidavit either on behalf of the State or respondent No. 6 has been filed.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Purnea Division in an Appeal No. 22 of 1993 as contained in Annexure-10.

(3.) IN view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that Appellate Authority was required to examine each and every document on record, and should have assigned reasons either for accepting or not accepting those documents. That having not been done, the appellate order as contained in Annexure-10 cannot hold good. As a result, the order dated 30.6.2002 as contained in Annexure-10 passed by the Commissioner, Purnea Division is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh after giving notice to all the parties concerned and upon proper consideration of all relevant documents.