MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Present constitutional petition proceeds against order, dated 22-6- 2004, whereby the learned Member, Board of Revenue, rejected petitioner's revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Notwithstanding the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, upon the examination of the impugned order, I find that the learned Member, Board of Revenue after recording brief facts of the case and noting down the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, abruptly came to the conclusion that "counsel for respondents has successfully proved that stipulated period of limitation expired on 7-10-1962 whereas new round of litigation was started in the year 2002 which is hit by res judicata". The learned Member, Board of Revenue did not render any findings on the basis of which he jumped to the conclusion that petitioner's revision petition deserves to be rejected. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order, I find that the impugned order is sketchy, slipshod and devoid of reasons. The said order is not at all a speaking order and cannot be called a "judicial order" within the parameters set up by law. The tenor of the impugned order amply manifests non-application of judicial mind. Even it has been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24(a) of General Clauses Act, 1897 (inserted by General Clauses Amendment Act, 1997, Act No.XI of IA 1997) to give reasons for making the order.
3. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has time and again disapproved passing of such perfunctory ordeRs, It is settled law that "judicial order" must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its judicial mind to the issues and points of controversy involved in the causes. In any way the impugned order, which is not a speaking order and devoid of reasons is not sustainable in law being in contravention of law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in various cases, like Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 272, Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller Import and Export and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 158, Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 and Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and others 1984 SCM R 1014.
Learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Law Officer, when confronted with the aforenoted settled legal position, have not much to say in support of the impugned order.
4. In the above perspective, to my mind, the impugned order is violative of the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and thus, I have no hesitation to remand the case to the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
5. For the foregoing reasons the present petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22-6- 2004 is set aside. Resultantly, petitioners' revision petition shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Judicial-II), who shall decide the matter, afresh, after rendering findings on all the issues involved in the case, hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law, preferable within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.