TOWN COMMITTEE, PIPLAN through Tehsil Nazim, Tehsil Piplan/Nazim Union

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the following judgment dated 14-9-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby writ petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 6 was disposed of:-- "14-9-2001. Hafiz Khalil Ahmad, Advocate.

' Point raised in this writ petition is the same which has already been settled in the case Market Committee, Khudian through its Administrator v. Town Committee Khudian through its Chairman 1992 SCMR 1043 and my judgment dated 30-5-2001 in Writ Petition No,1091 of 2001, the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent to act in the matter strictly in terms of section 4(3) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contentions raised on its behalf were not considered and the learned High Court failed to dispose of the petition by passing a speaking judgment. According to him important questions which were distinct and different from the law laid down in the judgment in the case of Market Committee, Khudian through its Administrator v.

Town Committee Khudian through its Chairman 1992 SCMR 1043 were involved in this case calling for independent application of judicial and by delivering a speaking judgment in accordance with the principles highlighted from time to time concerning writing of judgments.

3. When the learned counsel for the caveator was asked as to whether he can support the impugned judgment, he stated that since this Court has already resolved the matter, therefore, the High Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment.

4. It may be noted that the High Court may have followed the principles which have been enunciated in the judgment reported in 1992 SCMR 1043 but at least should have taken into consideration the contentions which were raised by the parties before it and may have disposed of the case by passing a speaking order instead of merely observing that this Court has already decided all these questions. It is noteworthy that the High Court has a duty to deal with all aspects of the case after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as precedence law if available. Thus, we are of the opinion that as in the instant case learned High Court has not passed the impugned judgment in accordance with law, as such it is not sustainable.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons we convert this petition into appeal, as a result whereof the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. As the matter is pending for the last about four years, therefore, High Court may dispose of the case expeditiously as far as possible within a period of two months preferably. No order as to costs.