MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant Writ Petition, Muhammad Majid, the sole proprietor of M/s. Cheena International ("the petitioner"), impugns the decision dated 07.10.2015, whereby respondent No.2 (Director General, Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment) cancelled the petitioner's Overseas Employment Promoter 's ("OEP") license No.3176/MTN and forfeited a securi ty amount of Rs.300,000/-, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 12(3) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner has also impugned the appellate order dated 26.01.2016, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of his OEP License, was dismissed by respondent No.1 (the Secretary , Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development). The petitioner is, to whom an OEP license was granted by respondent No.2.
2. The facts essential for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was granted an OEP license by respondent No.2. Subsequently , a complaint was sent by one Muhammad Arshad to respondent No.2 against petitioner , alleging that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to Asim Khan, the sales agent of the petitioner , as advance payment against a promise to send three persons for employment to Dubai; that neither was the said amount returned to the said complainant, nor was any body sent for employment to Dubai; and that this caused the said complainant to submit a complaint to respondent No.2. Consequently , the following notices were sent to the petitioner:-
(i) Notice dated 26.03.2015, from respondent No.3 (the Protectorate of Emigrant, Multan, requiring the petitioner to attend personal hearing on 30.03.2015 at 03:00 PM before Protector of Emigrants Opposite District Education Office near Chungi No.6, Multan.
(ii) Notice dated 29.04.2015, from respondent No.2 requiring the petitioner to attend personal hearing on 05.05.2015 at 11:00 a.m. before respondent No.2.
(iii) Notice dated 30.04.2015, from respondent No.2 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why action under Section 12(3) of the Emigration Rules, 1979, should not be taken against it.
(iv) Final Notice dated 15.05.2015, from respondent No.3 to the petitioner to attend personal hearing on 21.05.2015 at 11:00 a.m. before Director General, Bureau of Emigration & Overseas Employment, Islamabad at Emigration Tower Mauve Area, G-8/1, Islamabad.
3. Before any proceedings could take place pursuant to the said notices, a letter was received by respondent No.2 from respondent No.3 for the grant of permission to the petitioner for the recruitment of fifteen female workers for employment in Oman. This letter was forwarded by respondent No.2 to the community Welfare Attache, Embassy of Pakistan, Muscat, Oman for verification. The Community Welfare Attache informed respondent No.2 that the demand was fake and had not been generated by the employer . Consequently , a show cause notice dated 10.08.2015 was issued to the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why action under Section 12(3) of the Emigration Rules, 1979, should not be taken against it. The allegations against the petitioner , as set out in the said show cause notice, were as follows:- "a) You have submitted document to this Bureau for grant of permission for recruitment of workers for their Principal M/s. Fatima Khamis Salim Al-Kaabi however , the writer of demand letter when contacted on telephone No.00955-55141, did not own the initiation of any demand from her . b) Prima Facie the demand appeared to be false / fake. c) You have neither respond the Show Cause Notice issued by the Bureau earlier vide No.3176/MTN/2015 dated 30.04.2015 and did not settled the complaint of Mr . Muhammad Arshad."
4. On 08.09.2015, another notice for personal hearing was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner . On 26.08.2015 and 27.08.2015, the petitioner sent his replies/ clarifications to the show cause notices. Again vide notice dated 15.09.2015, respondent No.3 required the petitioner to attend personal hearing before respondent No.2.
5. On 07.10.2015, respondent No.2 cancelled the petitioner's OEP License and forfeited the security amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. As respondent No.2's letter dated 07.10.2015 is quite brief, the same is reproduced herein below:- "The Director General Bureau of Emigration & Overseas Employment after careful examination of the record found that you are indulged in following:-
(i) Extraction amount Rs.150000/- from Mr . Muhammad Arshid S/O Muhammad Nawaz, intending emigrant
(ii) Submission of fake documents for grant of permission for Oman on behalf of M/s. Maseel Modern Center for Beautification, Oman in Protector of Emigrants of fice, Multan
2. After affording you an opportunity of personal hearing on 01.10.2015, and being satisfied that you have been found guilty of violation of Emigration Laws and misconduct, has in exercise of the powers confe rred upon him under Section 12(3) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 cancelled your OEP license No.3176/MTN and forfeit ed the whole security amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the State.
3. You may if so desire file an appeal to the Federal Government within 30 days of the issue of this letter as provided under the law"
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority / respondent No.1 (the Secretary , Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development). This appeal was dismissed, vide an un-reasoned order dated 26.01.2016, which is reproduced herein below:- "In pursuance of his appeal dated 4th November 2015, the appellant Mr. Muhammad Majid, Ex-OEP of M/s Cheena International was issued a Notice for personal hearing to appear before the undersigned being appellate authority in the case on 26th January , 2016 at 11:00 a.m. regarding restoration of his OEP License No.3176/MTN, under the provision of Rule 12(3) of the Emigration Rules, 1979.
2. The said Ex-OEP/appellant appeared before me on 26th January , 2016 at 11:00 a.m. During examination of the record viz-a-viz personal hearing with Ex-OEP , the undersigned was of the view that the Ex-OEP was found guilty of misconduct on account of violating the emigration laws.
3. In view of the above stated position of the case, his appeal for restoration of OEP license No.3176/MTN is dismissed and the orders passed by the Director General, BE&OE dated 7th October , 2015 are upheld."
7. It is against the said original order dated 07.10.2015 and appellate order dated 26.01.2016 that the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his attack on the concurrent impugned orders by submitting that they were devoid of reasons and, therefore, in violation of Section 24-A of the General Clause s Act, 1897. It was pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner was a statutory appeal. He submitted that the disposal of petitioner 's appeal under section 12 of the Emigration Rules, 1979, was not supported by reasons.
9. The learned Standing Counsel made his submissions in reiteration of the contents of the para-wise comments. He further submitted that despite the fact that the impugned orders did not contain reasons, there was sufficient material before respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 to pass the said orders against the petitioner and revoke his OEP license.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record with their able assistance.
11. Without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the original order dated 07.10.2015, passed by respondent No.2 and the appellate order dated 26.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1 are not sustainable being devoid of reasons. The reproduction of these orders in their entirety was necessary to appreciate to cavalier manner in which penal measures had been imposed on the petitioner by revoking his OEP license.
12. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good adminis tration. The reasons for decisions make it possible to test the validity of these decisions by the machinery of appropriate writs. Since a statutory appellate authority acts as a quasi judicial authority , it is also required to apply its mind and give reasons. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed by the statute expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decisions.
13. The penal measures taken by the respondents against the petitioner were in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 (3) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which reads as follows:- "If at any time during the period for which a license is valid the Federal Government is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it may deem necessary , that the license has been guilty of misconduct, or that his conduct and performance as licensee has been otherwise unsatisfactory , or that he has committed a breach of any of the provision s of this Ordinance or the rules or the prescribed code of conduct, the Federal Government may, by order in writing, cancel the license or suspend it for a specified period and day also pass orders in regard to the forfeiture of the security furnish ers under sub-section (2) in whole or in part, and the decision of the Federal Government shall be final."
14. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which was inserted through General Clauses (Amendment), Act, 1997, 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 powers 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 ."
(Emphasis added)
15. The revocation of the petitioner 's OEP license entails serious consequences and attaches a stigma against him apart from causing him to suffer financial losses and loose business goodwill. The impugned orders are silent as to the reasons which had weighed with the respondents in revoking the petitioner 's OEP license. The impugned orders do not show whether the petitioner 's replies dated 26.08.2015 and 27.08.2015 were taken into consideration while passing the same. Public functionaries dealing with rights and obligations of persons are required to give valid reasons in their orders which were likely to operate adversely against such persons. The respondents were under obligation to justify as to why position taken by petitioner was not being accepted. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representations of the petitioners with reasons.
16. The requirement to give reasons for orders passed and decisions made by the executive has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in umpteen cases including Messrs Airport Support Services Vs. The Airport Manager , Quaid-e-Azam International Airport Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268 ), Secretary , Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another Vs. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others (2010 SCMR 511), Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana and others Vs. Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1159), Messrs. United Bank Limited Vs. Federa tion of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 856), and Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630). Furthermore, in the case of Dr. Zafar Ahmad Vs. Mst. Shamsa and others (PLD 2002 Karachi 524) it has been held that while dealing with substantive rights of parties, a cursory and groundless order without assigning reasons could not be conceived nor same would be treated as legal. In the case of Tristar Shipping Lined Limited Vs. Governme nt of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock and two others (1997 CLC 1475 ), it has been held that public functionaries dealing with the rights and obligations of persons were required to give valid reasons in their orders which were likely to operate adversely against such persons. In the case of Dr. Zafar Ahmad Vs. Mst. Shamsa and others (PLD 2002 Karachi 524), not only a Judge, but every authority , officer or person making an order under the powers conferred by or under any enactment is required to assign / record reasons for passing such an order .
17. In W oolcombers of India Ltd Vs. W oolcombers W orkers Union (AIR 1973 SC 2758), it was held as follows:- "The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decision of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons will be of little assistance to the Court."
18. The principles deducible from the law laid down by the Superior Courts, on the requirement to give reasons for decisions, are as follows:-
(i) Recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached in accordance with the law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency .
(ii) A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater , for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertaine d, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.
(iii) If the executive can make orders without giving reasons, the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power . But, if reasons for an order are to be given, it will be an effective restraint on such abuse, as the order , if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant considerations, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction.
(iv) The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness. It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made. It also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the executive or a tribunal within bounds.
19. Although respondent No.1, as an appellate forum was not required to state the points arising for determination, and then give his decision thereon as required by Order XXXXI, Rule 31 C.P.C., but reasons were nonetheless required to be given for the appellate order . The requirement to give reasons is equally applicable to appellate orders. The order disposing the appeal must indicate that there has been proper application of mind by the authority to all the pleas raised and the reasons for the decision are also to be explicit in the order itself. On perusal of the appellate order dated 26.01.2016 one cannot but hold that the said order of the appellate authority is cryptic and devoid of reasons. On that count the order of the appellate authority is found to be invalid and not sustainable.
20. In view of the above position of law which indicates the necessity of recording reasons, the pleas of the petitioner succeed. Accordingly , the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 07.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 and the appellate order dated 26.01.2016, passed by respondent No.1 are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the complaints against the petitioner within a period of two weeks by a reasoned speaking order . There shall be no order as to costs.