CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of respondent No. 1, dated 22.4.2003 through this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 has not passed the order after applying his independent mind and in fact has countersigned and copied verbatim the order dated 11.4.2003 passed by the Cane Commissioner in another case. The impugned order is at page 53 whereas the order of the Cane Commissioner is at page 62. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that in case both the orders be read together then it is crystal clear that the impugned order was copied by respondent No. 1 from the order of Cane Commissioner without applying his independent mind and decided the appeal of the petitioner in violation of the parameters provided by this Court in the earlier order dated 7.4.2003 passed in W.P. No. 4193/2003.
3. Learned Addl. A.-G. Submits that respondent No. 1 has passed the order after applying his independent mind and in accordance with parameters prescribed by this Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contents of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. In case the order of respondent No. 1, dated 22.4.2003 and order of the Cane Commissioner dated 11.4.2003 be read together then it appears that respondent No. 1 has countersigned and copied verbatim the order of Cane Commissioner in the impugned order, It is settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty bound to decide the controversy after applying their independent mind after addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Airport Sport Services' case (1998 SCM R 2268).
In view of what has been discussed above impugned order is set aside. Meaning thereby the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh after applying his independent mind within reasonable time after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 in his office on 10.6.2003 at 11 a.m. Who is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in terms of aforesaid direction within reasonable time.
With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.