Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 01.02.2001, by which the Original Application filed by the petitioner is dismissed as having become infructuous inter alia on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents may be directed to consider his representation and representation filed by the petitioner has already been decided, nothing survives in this application. 3. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel that in his Original Application the grievance was that in the representation given by the petitioner, the concerned authority has demanded comments from his subordinate authority in respect of the representation submitted by the petitioner and copy of which has been filed alongwith Original Application. The respondents state that the comments by the subordinate officer may be treated as decision of the representation and acting on that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. 4. Apparently, the grievance of the petitioner has been treated with most casualness inasmuch as the competent authority has only required the subordinate officer to give his comments about an incumbent and the comments of subordinate authority cannot be treated to be decision on the representation by authority concerned. There has to be some communication of the result of the representation by a Superior Officer on considering the representation and comments received from the sub-ordinate officer. Else it will be abdication of authority to consider the grievance of any incumbent in favour of a subordinate authority. 5. One fail to understand how the comments of a subordinate officer would mean decision of a representation when there is no communication of Superior Authority about his decision after application of mind by him. It was required by the competent officer to consider the representation after receiving comments from his subordinate officer and then communicate his decision to the petitioner so that he could either be satisfied with reply or may take the next step. Without application of mind to the representation made by the petitioner by the competent authority it cannot be treated as decision of the representation. The stance taken by the respondent to stifle right of the petitioner to seek the administrative review of his grievance by fair consideration of his representation and seek justice therefrom cannot be permitted. Without application of mind to the representation made by the petitioner by the competent authority it cannot be treated as decision of the representation. The stance taken by the respondent to stifle right of the petitioner to seek the administrative review of his grievance by fair consideration of his representation and seek justice therefrom cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is allowed and the order of the learned Tribunal is set-aside. The original application is allowed directing the respondent to decide the representation and pass a reasoned order and the petitioner is free to pursue remedy, if any, in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved with the order passed by the competent authority on his representation. 7. No costs.