MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.---- Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 25.01.2019, passed by respondent No.4 / Additional Director Licensing, whereby petitioner's request for renewal of Airline Transport Pilot License -Aeroplane ("A TPL") was declined, with the following prayer:- "In light of the foregoing submissions, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly: i. Set aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2019; ii. Direct respondents to renew the Airline Transport Pilot License -- Aeroplane of the petitioner without any further delay . iii. Issue fresh V erification Certificate,"
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order does not disclose the details .of anomalies observed by respondents in the examination given by petitioner . He adds that petitioner has not been confronted with the allegations through show-cause notice, proper opportunity to lead defence was not provided and impugned order has been passed in a slipshod manner , which tenders it non-speaking. He further submits that respondent No.2 was competent to pass order regarding refusal to grant or renew the license, thus, impugned order has been passed by incompetent authority . He maintains that no provisions exist in Civil Aviation Rules to constitute Board of Investigation, thus, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law .
3. Conversely , learned Legal Advisor for respondent-CAA defends the impugned order and submits that respondent No.4 issued ATPL on 03.03.2017 till 31.12.2018 on the basis of online record of examination, however , during re- verification, it transpired that petitioner was absent from examination centre on the day when four papers of basic ATPL were scheduled, thus, impugned order declining renewal of license and initiating inquiry / investigation in the matter is quite justified.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. Perusal of record prima facie reveals that petitioner successfully passed all examinations, which followed by issuance of Verification Certificate and license was also issued in his favour . However , respondents without any show-cause notice and assigning the substance of any allegation against petitioner qua his absence in the examination, has refused to renew the license, which has affected his fundamental right of livelihood. Further , learned Legal Advisor for respondent-CAA could not rebut that impugned order / letter was within the domain of respondent No.2 / Director General, Civil Aviation Authority and respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order , which ex facie constitutes violation of Rule 340 of Civil Aviation Rules, 1994. Even otherwise, impugned order does not reflect indepen dent reasons for deciding the matter , which also renders it non-speaking within the contemplation of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
6. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and impugned order is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority . Respondents are directed to re-adjudicate upon the matter regarding renewal of petitioner's ATPL by holding a fresh inquiry and redress petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order , under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).