' 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 security 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 p.m. 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 settle 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 Centre for 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 administration.
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 provisions 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 furnishers 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 reason 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 !Bosses 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. Rlt is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representations of the petitioners with reasons. ' may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, 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 it self. 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.