' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order, dated 5-4-2004 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed by respondent No,1 without application of mind, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. The learned counsel of respondent No,3 submits that impugned order was passed by respondent No,1 after application of mind as the original allottee has given her right to the respondents in her life time, therefore, impugned order is valid and the other grounds taken by the petitioner in the memorandum of petition are not relevant in view of paragraph 3(a) of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of the Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977.
4. The learned counsel of respondents Nos.1 and 2 also submits that impugned order is valid and passed by respondent No,1 after judicial application of mind.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. In case the grounds of revision petition before respondent No,1 and impugned order are put in a juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the impugned order was passed by respondent No,1 without application of mind, which is condition precedent by virtue of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. It is pertinent to mention here that section 24-A of the General Clauses Act is procedural in nature, therefore, same has retrospective effect as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zainyar Khan v. The Chief Engineer, WAPDA and others 1998 SCM R 2419. The Honourable Supreme Court has interpreted section 24-A of the General Clauses Act in Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager 1998 SCM R 2268 wherein it is held that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the controversy between the parties after application of mind. It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as per law laid down by this Court in Ahmed Lateef Qureshi v.
Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore PLD 1994 Lah.
3. The respondents have decided the controversy between the parties under statutory power; therefore, even if it is administrative order even then it is open to review by this Court. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments:-- ' The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437; N.Q.
Industries v. Mst. Bapai Kaikhusro PLD 1968 Kar.
589.
Mere reading the provisions of the said scheme clearly shows that the respondents have decided the controversy between the parties in the capacity of Quasi-Judicial Authority. Lord Denning has laid down the following principle while deciding Breen's case (1971) 1 All ER 1148:-- "The giving of reasons is one of fundamentals of good administration."
' The condition to record reasons introduces clarity and excludes arbitrariness and satisfies the party concerned against whom order is passed. To provide a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power by the public functionaries, the condition of recording reasons is imposed on them after addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act. It is also settled principle of law that if the statute requires recording of reasons, then it is statutory requirement and therefore, there is no scope for further inquiry but even then the statute does not impose such an obligation, it is necessary for quasi-judicial authority to record reasons as it is the only visible safeguard against the possible injustice and arbitrariness and affords protection to the persons who adversely affected. It is pertinent to mention here that Courts insisted upon disclosure of reason in support of order on the following reasons:--
(A) The party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before the appellant, or revisional Court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous;
(B) the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by executive authority invested with judicial power; and
(C) it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made."
' The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the law laid down by the superior Court in the following judgments:-- ' Shaukat Ali and others v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 342; Raipur Development Authority's case AIR 1990 SC 1426; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's case AIR 1987 SC 71; Harnagar Sugar Mills' case AIR 1961 SC 1669; M.P. Industries' case AIR 1966 SC 671; Mukarji's case AIR 1990 SC 1984; Collector of Monghyr's case AIR 1975 SC 2226..
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 5-4-2004 does not fulfil the requirements of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, therefore, same is set aside meaning thereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before respondent No,l. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No,1, who is directed to decide the revision petition of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law with reasons within reasonable time.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.