JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for thefollowing relief:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.5.2017 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ghanari, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una, HP whereby petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte and matter has been ordered to be posted for reply etc on 5.7.2017, may very kindly be set aside, with directions to the respondent No.1 to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law, in the interest of law and justice." 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are as under:- Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed an application for partition of land measuring 1-01-20 hectares comprised in Khewat No. 395, Khatoni No. 449 (Khasra No. 134) as per Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 situated in village Bhaderkali Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., in the Court of Learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghanari, Tehsil Ghanari District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Present petitioner has been impleaded as respondent No.6 in the said application. Notice to the petitioner was issued by the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade returnable for 16.2.2017, which was returned back with the report that Ajay Sharma was not residing at the address mentioned in the notice, who was residing at Shimla. This is evident from the report of the Process-Server dated 29.1.2017 (Annexure P-2 page 21 of the paper book) . Zimni orders passed by the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Ghanari, Tehsil Ghanari District Una demonstrate that on 16.2.2017 said authority recorded that out of all the respondents, on behalf of respondent No.2 Mr. Prince Sood submitted his memo, whereas rest of the respondents were not present. Said authority then ordered that the remaining respondents be served through proclamation for 17.4.2017. While passing this order, the report of the Process Server was perhaps both ignored and overlooked. On 17.4.2017 said authority again passed the similar order as was passed on 16.2.2017 and listed the case for 16.5.2017. Thereafter on 16.5.2017 said authority passed an order that as none of the respondents except respondent No.2 were present, hence they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the case was ordered to be listed for 5.7.2017. 3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. Thereafter on 16.5.2017 said authority passed an order that as none of the respondents except respondent No.2 were present, hence they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the case was ordered to be listed for 5.7.2017. 3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. As respondents No.2, 3 and 5 did not appear despite service, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the records of the case appended with the petition. 6. Mr. Gupta learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that impugned order vide which the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte is, prima facie , bad in law as while passing the said order, the authority concerned erred in not appreciating that as said report of the Process Server dated 29.1.2017 mentioned Ajay Sharma was residing Shimla, the petitioner could not have been proceeded against ex parte in the mode and manner in which it was done by the authority concerned. Mr. Gupta submitted that it is apparent that orders dated 16.2.2017, 17.4.2017 and 16.5.2017 were passed by the authority concerned without even caring to peruse the report of the Process Server. 7. In my considered view, there is force in the contention of Mr. Gupta. When it stood reported by the Process Server in his report dated 29.1.2017 that the present petitioner, who was respondent No.6 in the partition proceedings was residing in Shimla, then the proper course for the authority concerned was to have had directed the applicants therein to file the correct address of party in issue and then effect the service of the petition on the said correct address. Of course, thereafter if said party was found to be evading service, then the Authority could have resorted to other means of effecting service. Rather than doing so, the authority concerned apparently in a mechanical manner passed orders dated 16.2.2017, 17.4.2017 and thereafter order dated 16.5.2017, vide which the present petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. This Court is satisfied that all these orders were passed by the authority concerned by ignoring and overlooking the report of the Process Server dated 29.1.2017. This Court is satisfied that all these orders were passed by the authority concerned by ignoring and overlooking the report of the Process Server dated 29.1.2017. In other words, when the authority concerned passed orders referred to above, it did not even care to peruse the file including the report of the Process Server. This Court expresses its displeasure over the mode and manner in which the authority concerned has conducted itself. The authority has erred in not appreciating that it was performing quasi judicial function and was conferred with the duty of adjudicating upon the rights of the parties and in this background, it was not to act in a callous manner, in which it actually has acted which has indeed caused grave prejudice to the present petitioner. The order of service by way of proclamation has been passed in a mechanical manner without any satisfaction being mentioned in the orders by the authority that respondents like the present petitioner were in fact evading the service. In view of above, this petition is allowed and order dated 16.5.2017, vide which the present petitioner has been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte by learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ghanari, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una, H.P. in partition proceedings initiated against him is quashed and set aside with the direction to the authority to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law.