Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 27.03.2018, passed by Respondent No. 1/Administrator/Director General, Punjab Human Organ Transplantation Authority ("PHOT A"), Lahore, whereby petitioner's complaint against Respondent No. 3 regarding illegal corneal transplantation was rejected, with the following prayer: "With the foregoing submission, it is ardently prayed that writ petition may very graciously be accepted and Warning Letter to Respondent No. 3 dated 02.10.2017 and impugned order dated 27.03.2018, issued by the Respondent No. 1, may very kindly be set aside being illegal and unlawful, without any jurisdiction as well as against the norms of justice.
It is also prayed that the Respondent No. 2 may very kindly be directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law as early as possible."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is absolutely non-speaking inasmuch as it does not address the core issue as to whether provisions of Section 10 of the Punjab Transp lantation of Human Organs and Tissues (Amendment) Act, 2012 ("the Act of 2012") are attracted in the case of petitioner or not. He further submits that as per Section 8(2)(b) of the Act of 2012, the only authority to inves tigate the issue involved in this case is Monitoring Authority rather than Respondent No. 1/Administrator / Director General, PHOT A, Lahore. In the end, he submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law .
3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer, duly assisted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, defends the impugned order and submits that petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and legal infirmity in the impugned order , thus, same is liable to be upheld.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. In order to better appreciate the respe ctive contentions of learned counsel for the parties, relevant portion of impugned order dated 27.03.2018, passed by Respondent No. 1, is reproduced hereunder: "Section 10 of the Punjab Human Organ and Tissue Act does not attract in the instant matter , as there was no removal of cornea by the surgeon, Moreover , corneal transplantation is deceased organ donation which is being imported from different countries of the world especially from Sri Lanka. Although, complainant suffered a lot & his grievances should be readdressed by Punjab Health Care Commission as the matter deals with quality health care which pertains to the Punjab Health Care Commission (PHCC) and instant matter is also pending before it.
Moreover , the respondent has been warned and strict surveillance has been initiated through all possible means against him regarding any illegal corneal transplantation in future."
6. The above reproduced part of impugned order shows that it does not contain any valid lawful reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 2012 are not attracted in the present case. Even otherwise Respondent No. 1 might have exonerated Respondent No. 3 if the above-referred provisions were not attracted or referred the matter to the prosecution. However , conversely , Respondent No. 3 has been warned and strict surveillance has been initiated against him. The material aspects of the matter have not been considered by Respondent No. 1 while passing impugned order , thus, same is absolutely non-speaking.
7. It is the mandate of law that public functionaries, while determining rights of the parties, must dilate upon all aspects of the matters presented before them and under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, executive authorities are bound to decide the matters after application of mind, must assign cogent reasons and pass speaking orders. Reference, in this regard, is made to Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd. Workers' Union v.
Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1475 ) Fasih-ud-Din Khan and others v. Government of Punjab and others (2010 SCMR 1778 ) and Government of Pakistan through Director-General, (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge Ministry of Interior , Islamabad and others v . Farheen Rashid (2011 SCMR 1 ).
8. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed in the terms that impugned order dated 27.03.2018, passed by Respondent No. 1, is set aside being illegal and without lawful authority Consequently , the matter is remitted to Respondent No. 1, with a direction to decide the same afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and all concerned, strictly in accordance with law as well as the provis ions of Section 10 of the Act of 2012, through a speaking order , preferabl y within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order . Compliance report shall be furnished to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).