JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-1) passed by the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, State of Uttarakhand and for an issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner company to continue working under the concession agreement for a period of 5 years i.e. up to 14.08.2018. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pending arrears of dues along with interest as per the terms and conditions of the concession agreement with immediate effect and in future make timely payments as per the terms of the agreement, so that the salary of the Medical & Para Medical Professionals engaged by the petitioner company in performing/delivering medical services in remote terrains as awarded through concession agreement without any delay. C. The operation of the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-1) may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that the Government of Uttarakhand floated a request for proposal/tender documents for the operation and maintenance of Community Health Centres for 16 locations. Petitioner and one Ajit Gaba of Akash Hospital arrived at a consensus to participate in the tender for Uttarakhand for Operating & Maintenance of Community Health Centre (CHC). Petitioner received the letter of award dated 25.04.2013 whereby the bid were accepted by respondent authority with directions to comply with the requirement of RFP (request for proposal). On 14.08.2013 a concession agreement was arrived at between the Director General and the petitioner. Petitioner’s company performed the work to the entire satisfaction of the authority concerned, however, a termination notice-1 dated 17.08.2015 was issued by Director General. Under Secretary issued a circular to the Director General on 30.11.2015 by saying that a meeting is called on 01.12.2015 headed by Secretary for discussing the issue relating to package no.3 run by the petitioner’s company. On 01.12.2015, the meeting was held and decision was taken to terminate the agreement entered between the Director General and the petitioner’s company. Under Secretary issued a circular to the Director General on 30.11.2015 by saying that a meeting is called on 01.12.2015 headed by Secretary for discussing the issue relating to package no.3 run by the petitioner’s company. On 01.12.2015, the meeting was held and decision was taken to terminate the agreement entered between the Director General and the petitioner’s company. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.3230 of 2015 (M/S) before the Division Bench of this Court which was finally disposed of on 08.07.2016. In the order dated 08.07.2016 following directions were given: “A final decision will be taken in the matter arising out of the termination notices issued by the Director General within a period of two months from today. Before doing that, an opportunity must be afforded by the competent Authority to the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No.3230 of 2015. It will be open to the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No.3230 of 2015 to urge all contentions available to it in law before the competent Authority by placing all facts, including its contention that the decision dated 01.12.2015 was unauthorized, besides being not correct. The competent Authority will necessarily consider all the facts and also take a final decision in the matter, as held out, within a period of two months from today. In the meantime, in regard to the period from 1st January, 2016, till the date the staff has worked (this is for the reason that the learned Senior Counsel does not admit the contention raised by the petitioner that the staff has worked till 30th April, 2016), petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No.3230 of 2015 can produce material before the competent Authority and the competent Authority will take a decision at the earliest and if any amount is found due on the basis that they have worked during that period, the amount will not be withheld and will be released as per law. Regarding the period after April 30, 2016, even according to the petitioner, they have not worked, but we record the submission of learned Senior Counsel that if they work, payment, as per law, will be released to them till a decision is taken by the competent Authority.” 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Yesterday, this Court asked the learned Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Yesterday, this Court asked the learned Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. On instructions, the learned Chief Standing Counsel very fairly stated that the order impugned may be set aside but opportunity may be given to the Director General to pass a fresh order in the matter. 5. Since, the order does not appear to be reasoned order, the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 is quashed. Director General, Medical Health & Family Welfare is directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from today. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.