JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary (Oral) Challenge herein is to the order Annexure P-3 whereby the Commissioner, Mandi Division at Mandi has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the competent authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Jeoli Devi, Development Block, Bijhari, District Hamirpur and also debarred him from contesting the election as office bearer of any Panchayat for a period of six years. The impugned order reads as follows: “Case called. Adv. Ritesh Sharma vice Adv. K.S. Rana is present for the appellant. B.S. Bharmauria, counsel for respondent. State is also present. Case was listed today for consideration on admissibility. Mr. Rajnesh, Clerk DPO Office Hamirpur was also present. Both parties were heard in detail. Since the counsel for appellant, could not explain his case as to why the same should be admitted. Hence, the case is not admitted and the case file of this court be consigned to record room after due completion. Announced: sd/- Commissioner Mandi Division (H.P.)” 2. The legality and validity of the impugned order has been questioned in this writ petition on the grounds inter alia that the same being illegal, unconstitutional, without any jurisdiction and having been passed without application of mind is not legally sustainable. Further complaint is that a statutory appeal should have not been disposed of in such a cursory and cryptic manner. The impugned order is also stated to be politically motivated as according to the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed the same at the behest of political bosses. 3. The copy of grounds of appeal Annexure P-2 makes it crystal clear that the order Annexure P-1 was assailed before the second respondent on several grounds. The appeal being statutory one and first appeal, should have been admitted for final hearing and decided on merits after hearing the parties on both sides. Even if in his opinion not a fit case for admission, a reasoned order taking into consideration the grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal Annexure P-2 should have been passed. The second respondent has chosen a very noble method to dispose of the appeal with the observation that the counsel representing the appellant (petitioner herein) has failed to explain as to why the appeal was to be admitted. The second respondent has chosen a very noble method to dispose of the appeal with the observation that the counsel representing the appellant (petitioner herein) has failed to explain as to why the appeal was to be admitted. It can be reasonably believed that the Counsel representing the petitioner must have put forth arguments; however, it is the Commissioner below to the reasons best known to him opted for not discussing the petitioner’s case and dismissed the appeal in a manner unknown to law. The order without any reason is terse and does not stand for the test of legal scrutiny. 4. As a matter of fact, the appellate authority below has passed the impugned order in an illegal manner and without application of mind. The same, therefore, is quashed. Consequently, the appeal is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in the light of the observations hereinabove and after affording the parties on both sides due opportunity of being heard. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 5. The parties through learned Counsel representing them are directed to appear before learned appellate authority below on 22nd April, 2016. 6. Registry to send an authenticated copy of this order for compliance, to the appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner), Mandi so as to reach there well before the date fixed.