IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10796 of 2010 Date of Decision : June 29, 2010. Mohan Lal Bansal and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-affidavit from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners were granted licenses as Deed Writers in the Tehsil Complex at Bathinda. The Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, in purported compliance to some Instructions issued by the State Government, revoked the petitioners' licenses against which the petitioners have preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner, Faridkot C.W.P.No .10796 of 2010 2 Division, Faridkot. The Appellate Authority passed ad-interim stay orders in their favour on 30.4.2010 (Annexure P-11). Soon thereafter, the Financial Commissioner to Government of Punjab, issued the impugned Instructions dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-12) virtually commanding the Appellate Authority to vacate the ex-parte stay order. The petitioners have challenged these Instructions in this writ petition. Meanwhile, the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot-cum-Appellate Authority has vacated the ad-interim stay on 2.6.2010 and fixed the appeal for arguments on 7.7.2010. Apparently, he has acted under the `direct pressure' mounted upon him vide the impugned Instructions. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the Financial Commissioner has grossly exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the impugned Instructions thereby interfering in the independent and impartial functioning of a quasi- judicial Tribunal, namely, the Appellate Authority prescribed under the Statute. The Instructions tantamounts to imposing the command to decide the interim say matter as well as the appeal itself in a particular manner irrespective of the view that may be formed by the Appellate Authority. Such an action is totally against the principles of fair and just play as well as principles of natural justice. Any further observation at this stage may not be desirable or expedient in the interest of either of the parties. The impugned Instructions dated 24.5.2001 are accordingly annulled and the writ petition is disposed C.W.P.No .10796 of 2010 3 of with a direction that the ad-interim stay order dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure P-11) shall continue to operate till the Appellate Authority decides the appeal on merits. It shall be appreciated if the appeal is decided preferably within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The Appellate Authority shall be obligated to decide the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced of the observations made in the impugned Instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Dasti. June 29, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE