Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.157 dated 14-7-2001, under sections 337-A(ii), 337-E(i), 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Khanewal. After investigation by the various agencies he was recommended to be discharged and a report was submitted in that behalf before the learned Illaqa Magistrate who vide order dated 6-8-2001, discharged the present petitioner. Despite this order, the police was unnecessarily harassing the petitioner, therefore, he moved an application for bail before arrest which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23-10-2001, wherein it was observed that once the petitioner stands discharged by the Court of competent jurisdiction, if the police wants to arrest him, an order from the Magistrate is a prerequisite. The police on the very next day i.e. 24-10-2001, filed an application before the Illaqa Magistrate for obtaining his warrant of arrest which was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25-10-2001. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.9338 of 2001 in this Court which was disposed of with the observation that the police should act in terms of the dime by this Court reported in PLD 2001 Lah. 271.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 15-10-2001; is based on only one word i.e. "allowed". This order, according to him, is not a speaking order and is without application of judicial mind and any order which is a non-Speaking order is nullity in the eye of law. Relies on Sardar Ghulam Baqir Ali Khan v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Cooperative Department, Lahore and 2 others 2000 CLC 1783.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the complainant has supported the order.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, any authority whether judicial or quasi-judicial and even any executive authority who is vested with any power to pass any order, is required to give reasons. According to 1999 SCMR 2744, even the President of Pakistan cannot pass an order without assigning reasons either to agree or disagree with the order passed by the Ombudsman of Pakistan. The impugned order is based on only one word "allowed" which cannot be termed as judicial or speaking order with application of mind.
6. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25-10- 2001 passed by the Magistrate is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The application dated 24-10-2001, filed by the police shall be deemed to be pending before the Magistrate, who shall decide the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law.