IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2589 of 2019 Decided on 29th August 2025 Subedar Major (Retired) Charanji Lal Sharma …Petitioner Versus Union of India and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P. Sood, 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:- “That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside notice dated 23.09.2019 Annexure P-8.” 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 2 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 order i.e., Annexure P-8 is a non-speaking order. 4. A perusal of this order demonstrates that the prayer of the petitioner for considering the case for compounding has been rejected by stating in the impugned order 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. 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. 3 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 order but the impugned order does not contain any reason and is non- speaking order. 7. Accordingly, as the impugned order per se is bad being non-speaking order, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-8, dated 23.09.2019, issued by Chief Executive 4 Officer Subathu is 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)