- (1.) This appeal challenges the judgment dated 19th July, 2006, of the learned Single Judge, which allowed the writ petition, filed by the respondent, and quashed orders dated 14th July, 1987 and 30th January. 1990 (Annexures P-14 and P-16 respectively with the writ petition). The respondent-Company was directed to file a detailed representation before the competent authority within a period of four weeks. The competent authority was directed to decide the matter afresh taking into the postion of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others versus M/s Shanti Kunj Investment Private Limited, 2006 3 JT 1. The stand of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the matter was required to be re-examined by the competent authority in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stand of the appellant herein is that the issue required no re-examination by the authority, in other words, the stand taken in orders dated 14th July, 1987 and 30th January, 1990, was reiterated. The learned Single Judge has by the following reasoning, set aside the orders dated 14th July, 1987 and 30th Janaury, 1990 : Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has challenged the submission made by learned counsel appealing for the petitioner, but after having gone through the record, 1 find that the matter requires re-examination by the competent authority and the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is without any basis.
(2.) The order dated 14th July, 1987, cancels lease in favour of the respondent and the appellate order dated 30th January, 1990, dismisses the appeal and the revision, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14th July, 1987.
(3.) In our view, the learned Single Judge gave no reason why the reasoning contained in the order dated 14th July. 1987, and the appellate order dated 30th January. 1990, was deficient or erroneous requiring setting aside of that order by the learned Single Judge. We are of the view that the aforesaid reasoning is evident from the fact that all that the learned Single Judge has said is that he has gone through the record. In our view, this is not a correct appreciation of pleas and issues, which is required to be done while allowing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;