' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--This petition has called into question the orders passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad on 22-10-1979, cancelling the P.R.C. of the petitioner, and the appellate order of the Committee dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on 29-1-1980.
2. It is not necessary to consider the various facts involved in this petition as we have decided to dispose of this petition on the ground that the order of the Appellate Committee, dated 29-1-1980 has not been signed by the three members of the said Committee and has been signed only by the Secretary to the Government of Sind in his capacity as Chairman of the appellate Committee.
The case is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in PLD 1980 Kar.
568.
' The relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced here under:- "The contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that, as a matter of practice, the proposed orders of the Committee were invariably approved by all of its members before the same were issued under the signature of the Chairman of the Committee, has no force. The power exercised under rule 8(3) is to be exercised by three members of the Committee and, therefore, it is necessary that the decision taken by the members of the Committee collectively, or with the concurrence of two of its members, should be reflected on the face of the order itself. An investigation as to the manner in which the order was approved by circulation or otherwise by the members of the Committee is not warranted as it would entail enquiry into the proceedings of the Committee. The function of the Committee is of a quasi-judicial nature, if not entirely judicial, and is not administrative and must be exercised accordingly to the mandate of the rule by three members of the Committee clearly and manifestly."
3. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate-General of Sind has conceded that the case is covered by the cited decision. Accordingly we allow this petition and declare that the order signed only by the Chairman of the Appellate Committee, dated 29-1-1980 was without lawful authority. We remand the case back to the appellate Committee to decide the same after hearing the petitioner and other interested persons. The decision of the Committee should be signed by all the members of the Committee.
' The private respondents have been called absent.