IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2564 of 2019 Decided on 29th August 2025 Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned notices dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-7) and 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-8) and respondent No.3 be directed to comply with the direction issued by respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) and opportunity of being heard be afforded to the petitioner. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents not to demolish the structure of the petitioner and further to compound the structure of the petitioner as has been done in the cases of other residents of the same place vide Annexure P-11.” 2 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for alleged unauthorized construction vis-à-vis the property subject matter of the writ petition and the petitioner has been directed to remove the unauthorized construction. In terms of the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner to compound the unauthorized construction stands rejected. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is liable to be allowed on a very short count that the impugned orders i.e., Annexures P-7 and P-8 are non-speaking orders. 4. A perusal of these orders demonstrates that the prayer of the petitioner for considering the case for compounding has been rejected by stating in the impugned orders that case of the petitioner qua unauthorized construction was examined in the light of the provisions of the Revised Land Policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 09.02.1995 and found that the same was not compoundable. 3 5. Except this, nothing is mentioned in this order explaining therein as to how the prayer of the petitioner for compounding the unauthorized construction was not compoundable. 6. It is settled law that any order which has civil consequence vis-à-vis a person and which decides the rights of the parties has to be a reasoned order and a speaking order. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the reasons as to why the order should be a speaking order is that in case the order is a self-speaking order, then, the reasoning assigned therein by the authority while arriving at the decision finally arrived at, is the guiding light, which may either convince the party not to proceed with the matter any further or may provide the party the grounds to further assail the order. However, in the absence of any reasoning in the order, but natural, there is nothing available with the aggrieved party on account whereof it can lay challenge to the order. Though, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has referred to the reply to justify the issuance of impugned orders but the impugned orders do not contain any reasons and are 4 non-speaking orders. 7. Accordingly, as the impugned orders per se are bad being non-speaking orders, this writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-7 and P-8, dated 13.09.2019 and 20.09.2019, issued by Chief Executive Officer Subathu are quashed and set aside and the authority concerned is directed to pass a speaking order on the prayer of the petitioner for compounding and till the said decision is passed, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner be heard before passing a fresh order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (Vinod)