1. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General. Heard Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned AGP for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner yesterday, i.e. on 12.6.2012, the petitioner was asked to serve an advance copy of the petition (along with annexure) to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, who ordinarily appears for respondent No.3. Accordingly, advance copy of the petition came to be served by the petitioner to learned Additional Solicitor General. In response to the said advance service, learned Assistant Solicitor General has appeared today at the time of hearing of the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2009 passed by respondent No.1, present petitioner had taken out revision application before respondent No.3. He has further submitted that respondent No.3 has passed the order impugned in present petition, i.e. order dated 5.5.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Revisional Authority has not considered and/or dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner and the Revisional Authority has also not considered the relevant documents, which formed part of the record before the Revisional Authority and that, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority is vitiated on account of error of non-application of mind to the relevant material available on record and also to the submissions and contentions raised by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and therefore also it deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General has submitted that so far as the merits about the order and relevant facts are concerned, he has not received any instruction since advance copy of the petition was served on yesterday.
5. On consideration of the impugned order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority, it emerges that the order does not contain any discussion about relevant documents and/or even about submissions made and contentions raised by the applicant and it also does not reflect any reasons in support of the final decision are not recorded and the order does not reflect process of consideration of the relevant material and the contentions raised by the petitioner. The order also does not contain any discussion about documents and as to why the Revisional Authority did not find the contentions acceptable. The petitioner appears to be justified in contending that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order.
6. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to dispose of present petition at this stage with the below mentioned observations and clarifications, without going into the merits of the issues.
7. Since the impugned order is found to be unreasoned and non-speaking order, the same is set aside only on the said limited ground and the matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
8. The Revisional Authority will take into consideration the submissions and the contentions raised by both sides and all relevant documents, on which the applicant and respondents No.1 and 2, seek to rely.
9. After considering the submissions of both sides and the material relied on by both sides, an appropriate fresh and reasoned order may be passed by the Revisional Authority as expeditiously as possible.
10. With the aforesaid clarifications, the petition is disposed of.
11. It is once again clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and it would be open to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter independently and in accordance with the law. Direct Service is permitted.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top