1. ' SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---As these Constitution petitions involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are that the petitioners are a Banking Company duly incorporated under the Banks (Nationalization) Act (Act XIX of 1974), having their registered office at Habib Bank Plaza, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. Till the fall of Dacca and creation of Bangladesh on 16th December, 1971, the petitioners had in their employment employees from the territories then forming Province of East Pakistan. Consequent upon the establishment of Bangladesh, Government of Pakistan promulgated Act XX of 1975, known as Abandoned Properties (Management) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereunder, inter alia, any amount due to specified persons or payable in respect of any abandoned properties was to be paid to respondent No, 2 by the persons liable to pay the same.
3. Constitution Petition No, D-62 of 1987 ' The petitioners submitted a declaration in respect of the ex-employees in respect of their Provident Fund balance and the loans recoverable from them as debit balance and surrendered to the respondent No, 2, a sum of Rs,1,842,418,91. Consequent upon the notices issued by the respondent No, 2 ordering Bank/petitioners calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the petitioners should not surrender the amount of interest as well with effect from 16-12-1971 till the date of payment, the petitioners contended that under the rules of the Bank, the Petitioners are not liable to pay interest on the credit balance of the employees from the date, they ceased to be in the employment of the Bank. This contention was not accepted by the respondent No, 2 and he ordered the petitioners to pay interest to Abandoned Properties Organization on the said sum of Rs,1,842,418.91 with effect from 16-12-1971 till the date of payment vide order dated 244-1984. The petitioners went in appeal before the respondent No, L The respondent No,1 instead of trying to understand and appreciate the point raised before it, concluded that the impugned order contemplates a detailed examination of accounts at a later stage and therefore the Deputy Administrator is directed to scrutinize the statement of accounts furnished by the petitioners. The respondent No, 2 passed a fresh order without affording any opportunity to the petitioners being heard. Hence the present petition.
4. The petitioners submitted a declaration disclosing the accounts:
(a) Employees' own contribution ...Rs,242,889.84
(b) Bank's contribution ...Rs,316,858.42
(c) Loans availed by Specific Persons ...Rs,113,262.34 ' After adjustment of the loans availed by the declared specified persons, a balance of Rs,446,485.92 was available in credit, against their accounts. The respondent No,2 passed an order dated 25-1-1984 and directed the petitioners to surrender the balance of Rs,113,262.34 and also directed to pay interest accrued on the amount of Rs,446,585.92 which amount was surrendered to the respondent No,2 being the amount in the credit balance of the specified persons. It is the case of the petitioners that since the demand of respondent No, 2 in asking for the surrender of Rs,113,262.34 i,e, the amount deducted by the Bank for the loans availed by the specific persons and the interest as directed was/is not legally justified, an appeal was filed before the respondent No,l.
5. The learned members of the respondent No,1 disposed of the said appeal by an order dated 16-10- 1986 whereby the respondent No,2 was directed for a detailed scrutiny of the statement of accounts filed by the petitioner and also to apply interest. The respondent No,2 passed a fresh order dated 26-11-1986 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. Hence the present appeal.
6. ' We have heard Mr. S. Hamid Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.M.
7. Noorul Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have perused the impugned order passed by the respondent No,1.
8. ' The impugned order does not contain the discussion on the merits of the case. The respondent No,1 further observed that the Deputy Administrator had not correctly read the statement of accounts produced by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the Deputy Administrator was directed to scrutinize the statement of the accounts furnished by the Bank in respect of credit balances of the provident fund of the specified persons. On remand, the Deputy Administrator in his order observed that the accounts were examined and found nothing new as already mentioned in the Deputy Administrator's order dated 24-1-1984. The Provident Fund Rules and the statement of accounts furnished by the petitioners had not at all been adverted to. An order which does not deal with the merits of the case and does not indicate that it was passed after applying mind to the relevant facts and merits of the case, cannot be termed as a valid order at all. Such an order being contrary to the norms of justice, would be deemed to be without justification. An order, whether it is passed by a judicial tribunal or quasi-judicial or even by an executive authority, must indicate that it was passed after considering all the relevant facts and respective claims of the parties. An arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction, in flagrant disregard of law and principles of natural justice, tantamounts to denial of justice. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No,1 and respondent No,2 are void and of no legal effect.
9. ' In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the Constitution petitions and hold that the impugned orders dated 16-10-1986 and 26-11-1986 passed by the respondent No,1 and respondent No,2 are void as violative of principles of natural justice. We also issue writ of mandamus against the respondent No,1 to decide afresh the appeals filed by the petitioners which cluminated in impugned order dated 16-10-1986, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. The learned members of the respondent No,1 are directed to decide the appeals within two months from the receipt of this judgment.