1. ' 1 and 2. A very short point is involved in this petition which stands disposed of at Katcha Peshi stage.
2. ' The petitioner a Private Limited company engaged in sugar manufacturing, has assailed the embargo imposed by respondent No,1, through order dated 23-1-2006, which reads as follows: Government of Pakistan Office of the Superintendent Local Sales Tax and Federal Excise Mirpurkhas Scheme No,III Satellite Town Mirpurkhas Ph . 0231-9290145-6 ' C. N0.2-ST/Najma/MPS/2006/636 Dated 23-1-2006 ' Messrs Abdul Riaz Khan/Shewak Ram Kalal, Inspectors of Local Sales Tax & Federal Excise Office Mirpurkhas ' Soomar Khaskheli Havaldar and Muhammad Ismail Sepoy of Local Sales Tax and Federal Excise Office Mirpurkhas Subject: Re-Imposition of Embargo on Messrs Najma Sugar Mills Limited Jhuddo ' The above officials of this circle are hereby deputed for imposition of embargo on supply of goods from Messrs Najma Sugar Mills Limited Jhuddo with immediate effect till further order. Sd/- Superintendent Local Sales Tax and Federal Excise Mirpurkhas ' Copy submitted to:--
(1) The Additional Collector, Customs Sales Tax and Federal Excise Hyderabad.
(2) The Assistant/Deputy Collector (Enforcement) Sales Tax Hyderabad with reference to his telephonic direction on 23-01-2006.
(3) Messrs Najma Sugar Mills Ltd. Jhuddo.
3. Sd/- Superintendent Local Sales Tax and Federal Excise Mirpurkhas ' Mr. Ch. A. Rasheed, Advocate has submitted that the Superintendent is not empowered to impose the embargo.
4. ' Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the embargo has not been imposed by the Superintendent but by the officer competent in law.
5. ' When pointed out that the impugned order is a sketchy and bald, in which no reason have been shown for the imposition of embargo. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, has contended that there were sufficient reasons for the imposition of embargo and he can show it from the record that the impositions of embargo were properly imposed. We are not impressed with the Court exception for the reasons. If there are sufficient reasons available with any functionary of the State, then while passing any order those reasons should be incorporated in the order itself. Enabling the person adversely affected to know the reasons for passing any such order. This has become more necessary after the General Clauses Act, 1897 by the General Clauses (Amendment) Act, (XI of 1997), dated 2-6- 1977, which reads as follows:-- "24-A Exercise of power under enactments:---
(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the power conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reason for making the 'order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the orders or as the case may be, for issuing the direction to the person prejudicially."
6. ' A perusal of the above section clearly shows that any authority, office or person making any order of issuing any direction under the power conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and. Shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially.
7. ' The impugned order passed by the respondent No,4, Superintendent Local Sales Tax and Federal Excise, Mirpurkhas dated 23-1-2003 does not conform to the requirements of subsection (2) of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as no reason is contained in it and no reference to any order passed by any competent officer in pursuance or furtherance thereof the order has been made.
8. ' This order is therefore, struck down with further declaration that all the actions in pursuance thereof are illegal and shall not be acted upon.
9. ' The petition is allowed in the above terms. However, before parting with this order, we would like to observe that not withstanding the above order passed by us the respondents shall be at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with the law subject to the condition that any such order shall conform to the requirements of section 24-A, meaning thereby it should contain the provision of law under which the jurisdiction was exercised and the reasons for making any order affecting the petitioner, prejudicially.