JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-14) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the exemption from the payment of electricity duty to the petitioner company as per the scheme of the State Government for 5 years, so that the petitioner company can be fully revived and made operational. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (iv) Any other orders which are deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents." 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his contentions to the effect that impugned order, dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-14) , vide which representation of the petitioner Annexure P-13 was decided by the Director (Industries) , Himachal Pradesh is neither speaking nor a reasoned order. Mr. Khidtta further submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case this order is quashed and the respondentAuthority is directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order on Annexure P-13. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and having perused Annexure P-14, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order, dated 13th October, 2011, is not sustainable, as the same is neither speaking nor a reasoned order. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. There is no reference to the contentions which stood made by the petitioner in its representation, nor any reasoning is there in the impugned order as to why the contentions so raised in the representation did not found merit with the Authority concerned. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order is neither a speaking nor a reasoned order. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that a perusal of the reply filed by the State will demonstrate that the Scheme under which the petitioner was seeking subsidy since stands rescinded. Mr. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order is neither a speaking nor a reasoned order. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that a perusal of the reply filed by the State will demonstrate that the Scheme under which the petitioner was seeking subsidy since stands rescinded. Mr. Khidtta submits that the petitioner-Company is alive to the said situation, but yet its contention is that its representation may be decided by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, dated 13th October, 2011 (Annexure P-14) , with a further direction to the Director (Industries) to decide the representation Annexure P-13 by a speaking and reasoned order. This Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the petition at all and the Director (Industries) shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner on merit as per its wisdom. This Court hopes and expects that necessary orders shall be passed by the Authority concerned, as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from the date the order of this Court is made available to the said respondent-Authority by the petitioner. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the order so passed by the respondent-Authority, it shall be open to it, to pursue its remedy, in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also miscellaneous application(s) , if any. No order as to costs.