1. ' Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 30.09.2016 passed by Respondent No, 2, whereby petitioner's complaint is dismissed as time barred under Section 23(2) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 ("Act of 2010").
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is passed without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Further submits that petitioner is a widow and complaint is regarding death of her husband. Contends that complaint is filed after completion of Iddat period.
3. Learned AAG submits that complaint cannot be entertained after expiry of limitation period.
4. 3.Heard at preliminary stage, record perused, 4.Needless to say that every order is to be passed with reasons as envisaged under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, Pk 1897. The reason for delay appears to be convincing, which has not been considered in the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Respondent No, 2 who shall provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and attend to the cause of delay, in addition to determining whether limitation provided in Section 23(2) is directory or mandatory in nature after considering petitioner side's arguments that Section 23(2) is directory because no consequence after expiry of the provided limitation is given.
5. The needful shall be done within fifteen days from receipt of this order.
5. Disposed of.