IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2814 of 2026 a/w CWP No.2900 of 2026 Decided on: 31.03.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.2814/2026 Madan Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents

2. CWP No.2900/2026 Madan Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?

For the Pe titioner(s): Mr. Verender Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in both the petitions.

Mr. Kulwant Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CWP No.2814 of 2026 and respondent No.7 in CWP No.2900/2026.

Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 8 to 10 in CWP No.

2900/2026.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Both these petitions involve common questions of law and facts, hence, with the consent of learned counsel

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

for the parties, have been taken up together for hearing. For convenience facts have been referred to hereinafter from the lead case CWP No.2814/2026 (Madan Lal versus State of H.P and others).

Taking into consideration the order impugned herein and the submissions made by learfned counsel for the parties, it is not necessary to call for reply from respondents No. 5 to 7. Respondents No. 1 to 4 though have filed reply. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter has been heard at this stage.

2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh dismissing his revision petition No.466/2025.

It was on 22.08.2025 that respondent No.2 had Hordered to issue fresh notice to the respondents and matter was directed to be listed for admission on 07.11.2025. On the next date i.e. 07.11.2025, following order was passed by respondent No.2:-

“07.11.2025 Present: Miss Yogita vice Sh. Ganesh Barowalia, Counsel for petitioner.

Ld. Vice Counsel for petitioner heard. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any specific illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 28.05.2025, passed by the ld. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in a case No.90/2024- titled as Sh. Madan Lal vs State of H.P., whereby the ld. Commissioner has upheld the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Ld. Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, inP case No.244/2015/SO titled as Mohinder Singh Vs State of H.P & others.

Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed in limline.

Announced in open court today on 07^th Nov 2025. The file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.”

3. In State Project Director, U.P. Education for all Project Board and ot hers,² Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that a judgment cannot be sustained in absence of reasons. Relevant paras are as under:-

“4. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by hthis Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC

785. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are gextracted hereinbelow: -

“23. We are not venturing to comment upon i the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments b