Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23957
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Krishna Kanhaiya Shanu – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited – Respondent
WPS No. 3513 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nasimuddin Ansari, Roshan Kunj, Ajay Kumar Sahu, Riyazuddin Sheikh
For the Respondents: Varun Sharma
An appellate authority is legally obligated to pass a reasoned and speaking order when deciding an appeal; a non-speaking order is unsustainable and must be quashed.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - An order passed by an appellate authority dismissing an appeal without assigning reasons is non-speaking and liable to be set aside. (Para 5)
(B) Service Law - Appellate Authority - Duty to decide appeals in accordance with statutory rules by providing reasoned findings. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was a non-speaking and unreasoned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to non-speaking appellate order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. requirement of reasoned order under cca rules (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. order quashed and matter remitted (Para 6 , 7) |
Order On Board
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P/2), passed by respondent No.2/appellate authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of punishment has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2020, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against order of punishment by passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
5. A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P/2), without assigning any reason and by passing a non-speaking order, whereas, it ought to have been decided in light of Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 , which apparently has not been done in this case.
6. In that view of the matter, the non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P/2) is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for considering and deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
