' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the vires of the order& passed by the learned Magistrate Ist-Class, Dunyapur, District Lodhran dated 16-5-2006 have been called in question on the ground that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not assign any reasons while declining the discharge report and in a mechanical manner has disagreed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer without perusing the record or hearing the parties.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General also concedes that the impugned order is not a speaking order as no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate while disagreeing with the report of the Investigating Officer.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate- General.
4. Perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 16-5-2006 reveals that orders were passed without application of judicious mind and without perusing the police file in a mechanical manner.
Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that any authority whether judicial or quasi judicial or even an executive authority vested with any power to pass an order is required to give reasons in respect thereof. The impugned order cannot be termed as a judicious or a speaking order. In view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others 1999 SCM R 2744 and the case of Ahmad Din v.
Illaqa Magistrate and others 2003 YLR 1049, I accept the writ petition and set aside the order dated 16-5-2006. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh after hearing the parties and perusing the record through a speaking order.