' I intend to decide two Writ Petitions Nos. 21203 of 2001 and Writ Petition No, 19999 of 2001 by one consolidated order having similar facts and law..
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submit that the Appellate Authority countersigned the order of the Cane Commissioner without applying his independent mind, therefore, the' same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. They further submit that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority clearly reveals that the Appellate Authority without adverting to the grounds of appeals passed the impugned order. They further urge that Appellate Authority passed the order in violation of the law laid down by the Superior Courts. In support of their contention, he relied upon PLD 2001 Lahore 158. He further submits that impugned order was passed by the Appellate Authority without applying his independent mind.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the Appellate Authority passed order after applying his independent mind in accordance with law. He further urges that petitioners want benefit of their own misdeeds. He further urges that the controversy has been finally decided by this Court and provided formula in Writ Petition No,7559 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court on 29-1-2002. , He further submits that respondents are giving benefit to the aggrieved persons in terms as prescribed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel. Of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. The impugned order itself reveals that the Appellate Authority rejected the appeals of the petitioners without applying his independent mind. The contents of impugned order reveals that in fact the Appellate Authority countersinged the order of the Cane Commissioner. It is settled proposition of the law that, Appellate Authority has to pass the order after applying his independent mind and should not countersign the order of the Cane Commissioner. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by Ghulam Muhammad's case PLD 1964 SC 824. It is also settled principle of law that after addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the, Appellate Authority, to decide the appeal with reasons and within reasonable time as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Messrs Airport Support Service. 1998 SCM R 2268. Since, the Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal of the petitioner with reasons, therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
5-A. Parties are directed to appear before the Secretary Food', Government of the Punjab, in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 5-4-2002, who is directed to pass afresh order after applying his independent mind preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within stipulated period.
' With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.