Quasi-judicial authority dismissing revision must pass reasoned order addressing grounds raised and independently apply mind to lower orders; mere upholding without reasoning renders it invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Learned Court Guardian informs the Court that her fee stands paid to her.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19.12.2022 (Annexture P-5), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, H.P., in terms whereof, the revision filed by them against the order dated 06.02.2017, passed by the Collector, Kangra Sub-Division, District Kangra, H.P. has been dismissed by upholding the said order as well as the order passed by the earlier Authority.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and submitted that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law, as there is no reference to the grounds of revision in the order. The Divisional Commissioner has only quoted the contents of the order passed by the Collector, Kangra Sub-Division and thereafter, dismissed the revision petition by holding that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector demonstrate that they had exercised the jurisdiction as per the provisions of law by passing a speaking order. They had attempted to bring a closure to the partition proceeding and ample opportunities of hearing were given to the parties by the Commissioner and therefore, as the revision was devoid of any merit, the same was dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Commissioner was bound to have had taken into consideration the grounds taken in revision and assigned some reasonings in the order as to why he was not accepting the contentions of the petitioners raised before him and was concurring with the orders passed by the earlier Authority. He stated that in light of the fact that the order is not a reasoned order at all as there is no independent judicial application of mind by the Authority concerned, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 argued that in light of the fact that the Divisional Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the earlier Authorities, there was no reason to give any independent finding afresh because it is not as if he took a different view from the Authorities below and in light of the fact that he was concurring with the view taken by the Authorities below, it is settled law that such Authority need not pass a reasoned or speaking order. Accordingly, he stated that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed.

6. Learned Court Guardian has also argued on the same lines.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as other documents on record.

8. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner demonstrates that in his order, the Divisional Commissioner from Paras-2 to 5 of the order has quoted the contents of the orders passed by the Collector. Thereafter, in Paras-6 and 7 of the impugned order, the following has been held:-

“6. The perusal of order dated 06-02-2017 of Sub Divisional Collector Kangra and order dated 26-07-2014 of Assistant Collector Grade 1st Kangra and record placed in the file shows that both authorities below have exercised jurisdiction as per provisions of law and have passed speaking order. They have attempted to bring a closure to the protracted partition proceedings. Ample opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners by both Assistant Collector Grade 1st Kangra and S