JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is by M/s. Fortis Hospitals Limited challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who after setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Authorities for fresh consideration issued a direction to the Appellant that they shall not perform any operations till the matter is decided by the appropriate authority within the stipulated time. Aggrieved by the said direction, this writ appeal is preferred. 2. The appellant made three applications on 18.01.2010 for grant of Certificate of Registration to enable them to carry on Transplantation of Kidney, Liver, and other Abdominal Organs and cardiac, pulmonary, cardio-pulmonary transplantation. The report of the Appropriate Authority discloses that the application for harvesting and storage of Homograft was deffered as infrastructure was not available. However, the report stated that Hospital has all the required facilities in terms of infrastructure, equipments, Laboratories, Specialists, etc. Hence, the Committee recommended Transplantation of Kidney, Liver, Homograft (permitted only in usage). Therefore, on 25th March 2010 the Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Services and Chairman of Appropriate Authority for Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 granted Certificate of Registration for performing the Organ Transplantation of the Kidney, Liver, Homograft (permitted only usage). 3. One Smt. Seema Rai, aged about 44 years, who was suffering from Hypertension, Diabetes, Mellitus and Chronic Renal failure was admitted to the appellant Hospital. The Format prescribes for informed consent for high risk procedure shows that the procedure to be performed was Cadaver Renal and Pancreas transplantation. The said prescribed form contain the signature of the patient as well as her daughter who has signed as witness. Surgery was conducted for such transplantation of kidney as well as pancreas. On 06.05.2010 she died in the Hospital. Her husband -the respondent No.4 lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional Police on 30.05.2010. Para 2 of the said complaint shows, she was hospitalized in Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Bangalore on Saturday 1st May to undergo Cadaveric Renal transplant subject to blood cross matching. Post Hospitalization. Her nephrologists advised pancreatic transplant also adding that pancreatic transplant involved minimal risk (the maximum risk being that the pancreas will not work in the worst case). The risk was quantified in answer to a specific question whether there was danger to the patient's life. This question was asked twice, i.e. first by the patient and subsequently by the undersigned -the 4th respondent. The risk was quantified in answer to a specific question whether there was danger to the patient's life. This question was asked twice, i.e. first by the patient and subsequently by the undersigned -the 4th respondent. The Doctors confidently allayed the fears. The additional time envisaged for pancreas surgery was two hours. On 2nd and 3rd May she underwent approximately 21 hours of surgery under general anesthesia where 26 units of blood were transfused. She was placed on a ventilator subsequently. According to the Death Certificate provided by the Hospital she died of Cardiac failure at 9.00 p.m. on Thursday 6th May. On receipt of the said complaint, the jurisdictional Police registered FIR under Section 304 IPC and it is submitted that the investigation is still going on. 4. After lodging the complaint with the jurisdictional Police, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint to the Karnataka Medical Council on 02.06.2011 against the Hospital as well as two Doctors who were involved in the surgery. On receipt of the said complaint a notice was issued to the Doctors as well as to the Hospital on 08.06.2011 by the Karnataka Medical Council. The Medical Council after enquiry held as under : "(1) Smt. Seema Rai W/o the Complainant had signed the "Informed Consent" for a High Risk procedure and witnessed by her daughter. (2) Respondents performed Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation as an emergency in the interest of the Patient and not for the personnel gain. (3) Dr. Raju, Member Secretary, Hota, Office of the Joint Director (Medical), D.H. & F.W.S., Bangalore, has categorically stated in his oral evidence that Fortis Hospital has a License to perform Pancreatic Transplantation as they already have a Permission to perform Liver Transplantation which includes Pancreas and other Abdominal organs. Respondent (3) M/s. Fortis Hospital is administered a "WARNING" to follow the instructions of Appropriate Authority for Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and take measures to control infection and submit a Compliance Report to Karnataka Medical Council within 20 days from the date of this Order". 5. The 4th respondent did not prefer any appeal against the said order. 6. Thereafter, the 4th respondent also preferred a complaint before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming a sum of Rs.84,55,933/-as damages for deficiency in service. The said complaint is also pending consideration. 5. The 4th respondent did not prefer any appeal against the said order. 6. Thereafter, the 4th respondent also preferred a complaint before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming a sum of Rs.84,55,933/-as damages for deficiency in service. The said complaint is also pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint on 31.08.2010 before the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') under Sections 9 and 12 of the Act. The Appropriate Authority after entertaining the complaint directed an inhouse enquiry by Dr.V.Raju. The said Enquiry Officer submitted a preliminary report exonerating the doctors and hospitals of all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Chairman and other Members of the Appropriate Authority and alleged that the report exonerating the respondents is illegal. The said complaint was investigated by Sri D.N.Nayak, IAS, Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Services and other members and after enquiry, they also exonerated the doctors. In other words, the Committee held that the allegation of the 4th respondent that the death of his wife Smt. Seema Rai, is on account of negligence and violation of the prescribed provisions of Sections 9 and 12 of the Act is not conclusively proved. However, the Committee felt that it is desirable to separately issue detailed guidelines to all the concerned so that the hospital Authorities take due diligence and care by following all the required procedure so as to secure and safeguard the life and health of the patients. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Committee, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta complaining against Mr.D.N.Nayak, the Commissioner. The request before the Lokayukta was to set aside the perverted findings of the Government Enquiry Report and also to issue directions to the Government of Karnataka to initiate Appropriate action as provided in the Act having regard to the gravity of the complaint and the evidence furnished. On receipt of the said complaint, a notice was issued to the said D.N.Nayak and the other members of the Appropriate Authority. They filed a report denying all the allegations and pointed out that there was no substance in any one of them. On receipt of the said reply, the Lokayukta referred the case to Health Foundation for preliminary investigation and report. They filed a report denying all the allegations and pointed out that there was no substance in any one of them. On receipt of the said reply, the Lokayukta referred the case to Health Foundation for preliminary investigation and report. The said Foundation consisted of Dr.C.S.Hanumanthappa, Dr.R.Chandrashekar and Dr.K.R.Kamath. The said Health Foundation after enquiry and after referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was of the view that the Enquiry Committee headed by Sri.D.N.Nayak should have gone into all the details mentioned in the said report before giving the report. The Government may take Appropriate action on the lapses pointed out. The Appropriate Authority should be more vigilant and should make periodic inspection and follow up the patients as prescribed in the Act. The respondent was directed to approach the concerned Authorities for taking action against the concerned doctors for negligence on their part. On the basis of the said report, the Investigating Officer submitted his report to the Lokayukta. After taking note of the aforesaid report, the Additional Registrar Enquiries 1 was of the view that the report so submitted by Appropriate Authority is by a statutory body and it being a quasi-judicial Authority, the remedies lies to the complainant elsewhere and not before this Institution. Having observed that he submitted the following procedure: i) ceasing further investigation in this case by invoking provisions of Section 9(5)(b) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act on the ground that this Institution has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation to deal with complaint of allegation or grievance made to set aside the report and ii) to send report in the form of letter regarding investigation conducted to the Government of Karnataka without any finding or recommendation contemplated under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, which has the status of "information" as referred in W.A.No.1510-1511/2004 (between State of Karnataka and Karnataka Lokayukta Vs. Prof.S.N.Hegde and others) to issue any other direction which Hon'ble Lokayukta consider to suit the situation. 8. This order was passed on 02.09.2011. When it was placed before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, he directed the said Authority to "speak" on 06.09.2011. Thereafter, the Authority discussed the matter with Hon'ble Lokayukta and reiterated as observations made earlier. It was on 08.09.2011. However, the Hon'ble Lokayukta passed an order to examine further and put up on 09.09.2011. 8. This order was passed on 02.09.2011. When it was placed before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, he directed the said Authority to "speak" on 06.09.2011. Thereafter, the Authority discussed the matter with Hon'ble Lokayukta and reiterated as observations made earlier. It was on 08.09.2011. However, the Hon'ble Lokayukta passed an order to examine further and put up on 09.09.2011. On the very same day, the said Authority after re-examining the case, submitted that having regard to the provisions of law, no action can be taken by the Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. However, the result of investigation done so far and the report submitted by Health Foundation may be forwarded for information to the Government for taking further necessary action. When this was placed before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, he approved the same and thereafter a draft of intimation letter was prepared and sent. The appropriate authority under the Act on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent as well as on the basis of the report of the Lokayukta, issued notice to the Appellant Hospital. On receipt of the said notice, a response was submitted by the Hospital with facts, figures and documents. On consideration of the said reply, the Appropriate Authority passed an order holding that even though Fortis Hospital was authorized to perform the Organ Transplantation of Kidney, Lever and Homograft (permitted only usage), they have transplanted the Pancreas, the organ, which is not authorized by the Appropriate Authority. The contention of the Fortis Hospital that M/s.Fortis Hospital indeed have permission to conduct Lever and other abdominal organs including Pancreas transplantation cannot be accepted. Further, it held regarding the contention of the appellant that the signature on the Consent Form (the second one) was of his daughter's to be verified by employing the handwriting expert. Otherwise the contention, the surgical procedure was done without consent is not tenable. Finally, they proceeded to hold that even though the condition of the registration clearly stipulates that the Hospital has to follow all the aseptic precautions before, during operation and also postoperative period, the patient died due to post-operative bleeding owing to disseminated intra-vascular coagulation and septic shock. Hence, the Committee found that the Hospital has not maintained appropriate post-operative infection control measures which is a mandatory requirement to be followed in the cases of transplantation. Hence, the Committee found that the Hospital has not maintained appropriate post-operative infection control measures which is a mandatory requirement to be followed in the cases of transplantation. Therefore, they recommended that in view of the above observations, the cancellation of Certificate of Registration (Certificate No.MDM/26/09-10 dated 25.03.2010) issued to the appellant under Section 16 sub-section (2) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 be cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the appellant does not have license for transplantation of Pancreas. They also agreed with the observations of the order of the Appropriate Authority that the surgical procedure was done without the consent is not tenable. In so far as any violation of the Code of Medical Ethics in the process of transplantation of Pancreas at the Appellant Hospital is concerned, they held the Karnataka Medical Council which is a competent Authority in this regard has in its order dated 02.06.2011 unanimously opined that there was no negligence or violation of Code of Medical Ethics by the concerned doctors. They were of the view that the said opinion prevails till it is appealed against and set aside. With regard to infection control, the Appellant Hospital shall comply with the directions issued by Karnataka Medical Council and observations made by the Competent Authority and therefore, they rejected the appeal and upheld the order of cancellation of license. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.45437/2011 (GM- Res) on 23.12.2011, an interim order came to be passed staying the impugned order dated 12.09.2011. But it was made clear that in the absence of Certificate specifically issued for transplantation of Pancreas, the appellant was restrained from carrying out any transplantation of Pancreas pending further orders. Subsequently, the matter was heard on merits. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties was of the view that the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act clearly and specifically contemplate an opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, the matter was heard on merits. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties was of the view that the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act clearly and specifically contemplate an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, the Appellant Hospital was not heard by the Appropriate Authority in the meeting held on 16.08.2011, not only because the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act was not followed but having regard to the peculiar nature of the charges and the enquiry, the Appropriate Authority ought to have granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner Hospital. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the learned single Judge was of the view that non-affording an opportunity of being heard has caused miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed, particularly when the order is penal in nature and drastic in character. He made it clear that he is not entering into any issue at this stage and keeping all contentions open for the parties to raise before the Appropriate Authority, the impugned order passed by the Appropriate Authority as well as the appellate authority was set aside and a direction was given to the appropriate Authority to decide the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and so also supplying all the materials, on which, they intend to rely upon for deciding the complaint, well in advance. A period of ten weeks was fixed for the decision from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, he proceeded to observe as under: "31. On 23.12.2011, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the present writ petition had stayed the order dated 23.12.2011, cancelled by the Appropriate Authority and that the petitioner-hospital was restrained from carrying on transplantation of pancreas, pending further orders. This order was carried in appeal by the complainant and in the appeal, the order was stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated 17.04.2012. The order of stay is operating till this date. It is true that after setting aside the orders impugned in the present case, the petitioner -hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying out Human Organs Transplantation Operations on the basis of the license. The order of stay is operating till this date. It is true that after setting aside the orders impugned in the present case, the petitioner -hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying out Human Organs Transplantation Operations on the basis of the license. However, in the present case, I observe that the petitioner - hospital should not perform any Human Organs Transplantation Operations, on the basis of the registration certificate dated 25.03.2010 till the Appropriate Authority decides the matter afresh as observed earlier. It is true that even the order of suspension of license, as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act, tantamount to final order. However, I am making such observation, in view of the fact that the orders passed by the Appropriate Authority and the Appellate Authority are set aside on technical ground namely, the opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioner -hospital and/or they were not served with the entire material that was relied upon by them for cancelling the registration certificate/license. In my opinion, it is necessary also in the interest of the petitioner hospital, that they should not perform any operations till the matter is decided by the Appropriate Authority within the stipulated time. It is true that after setting aside the order in the present case, the petitioner -hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying operations on the basis of the license. However, in the present case, I observe that the petitioner - hospital should not perform any Human Organ Transplantation Surgeries for a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that if fresh order is not passed by the Appropriate Authority within the stipulated time, the petitioner - hospital will be allowed to perform transplantation operations as per the registration certificate, which, shall not include other abdominal organs such as pancreas." 10. This judgment of the learned single Judge was delivered on 07.11.2012. Aggrieved by this order, both the hospital and the 4th respondent preferred writ appeals Nos.8767/2012 and 8791/2012 before this Court. After hearing both the parties, the writ appeals were admitted and by a considered order, an interim order, came to be passed to the effect that once the hospital has obtained Certificate of Registration/License from a competent Authority, till it is cancelled, they cannot be prevented from performing any human organ transplantation, surgeries as otherwise needy persons are effected. After hearing both the parties, the writ appeals were admitted and by a considered order, an interim order, came to be passed to the effect that once the hospital has obtained Certificate of Registration/License from a competent Authority, till it is cancelled, they cannot be prevented from performing any human organ transplantation, surgeries as otherwise needy persons are effected. It is a question of life and death. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to stay that operation of the order passed by the learned single Judge. However till the appeals are disposed of, the hospital shall not perform any organ transplantation in respect of pancreas on the basis of the aforesaid certificate of grant. The Appropriate Authority also shall wait for the decision of this Court before proceeding further in the matter. 11. W.A.No.8791/2012 preferred by the 4th respondent challenging that portion of the order where the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Authority was withdrawn by filing a memo and accordingly, by an order dated 19.04.2013, W.A.No.8791/2012 was dismissed as not pressed. The resultant position would be the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter, attained finality. 12. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal which requires to be decided is, whether the learned single Judge after setting aside the impugned orders could have issued a direction to the appellant not to perform the organ transplantation when the appellant had a valid Certificate issued by a competent Authority for performing its organ transplantation. 13. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellate and also the 4th Respondent (Party-in- Person) as well as the learned Government Advocate. 14. The learned Senior Counsel assailing that portion of the order where the appellant is restrained from carrying on any organ transplantation submitted, that once a competent Authority has issued a Certificate under the Act, the appellant -hospital has a right to perform those transplantations. Though the said Certificate was cancelled, once the order cancelling the Certificate is set aside, the resultant position is the Certificate comes back to life and therefore, as long as there is a valid Certificate, the appellant hospital is competent to perform the organ transplantation. Though the said Certificate was cancelled, once the order cancelling the Certificate is set aside, the resultant position is the Certificate comes back to life and therefore, as long as there is a valid Certificate, the appellant hospital is competent to perform the organ transplantation. The said right, has been taken away by the impugned order without any reason and therefore, he submits that the same requires to be set aside. 15. The 4th Respondent vehemently contends that the material on record discloses that there is no Certificate issued for transplantation of pancreas. Admittedly, the hospital has performed transplantation of pancreas to his wife, because of the negligence and other factors, which are borne from the record, she died. In other words, they have acted contrary to the statutory provisions, performed organ transplantation without a valid license/certificate. Therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in issuing a direction in the light of the aforesaid facts, preventing the hospital from carrying on such transplantation till the Appropriate Authority decides the case on merits and therefore, he submits, no case for interference is made out. 16. Learned Government Advocate also supported the said argument. 17. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the appellant made an application for registration of the hospital to carry out transplantation of kidney, lever and other abdominal organs as well as cardio-pulmonary. On consideration of the said applications, the Authority under the Act found some deficiencies but after being satisfied that the hospital has all the required facilities in terms of infrastructure, equipments, manpower, specialized services, etc., recommended for the registration of Kidney, Lever and Homograft (permitted only usage). On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the Appropriate Authority under the Act issued a Certificate of Registration dated 25.03.2010 granting Certificate of Registration for performing the organ transplantation of the Kidney, Lever and Homograft (permitted only usage). Once such a Certificate has been issued by the Appropriate Authority, the Appellant acquired a right to carry on organ transplantation. By issue of such a Certificate, a right is vested in the Appellant. In fact, in the absence of such a legal sanction, the removal of organs from persons suffering brain-stem death has not been possible. It is submitted that transplantation of organs like liver and heart for which latest technology is available in the country. By issue of such a Certificate, a right is vested in the Appellant. In fact, in the absence of such a legal sanction, the removal of organs from persons suffering brain-stem death has not been possible. It is submitted that transplantation of organs like liver and heart for which latest technology is available in the country. A comprehensive law regulating the removal and transplantation of human organs from cadavers and living persons and prohibiting commercial dealings in human organs has been enacted by the Parliament. On one hand, an attempt is made to prohibit the unethical practice of commercial dealings in human organs especially, Kidneys. On the other hand, by providing legal sanction, the removal of human organs and transplantation of such organs to the needy persons is regulated by this Act. 18. In this background, when the Appellant has obtained a Certificate of Registration to perform the organ transplantation of Kidney, Lever and Homograft (permitted only usage) as long as the said Certificate remains in force and not cancelled, they have every right to perform the organ transplantation. By the impugned orders, in the writ petition, the said Certificate has been cancelled. Now, the said orders cancelling the Certificate has been set aside by the learned single Judge and the matter is now remanded back to the Appropriate Authority for fresh decision and in accordance with law. The effect of setting aside the order of cancellation is, the Certificate of Registration will be in force. The Appellant has a legal right and such a legal right can be taken away only in a manner known to law. The learned single Judge was conscious of this legal right when he observed "that it is true that after setting aside the orders impugned in the present case, the hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying out the human organs transplantation on the basis of the license." However, without any reason, he proceeded to hold that the hospital should not perform any human organs transplantation operation on the basis of the Registration Certificate dated 25.03.2010 till the Appropriate Authority decides the matter afresh as observed earlier. This portion of the order is not supported by any reason. The only reason, if all is that he has set aside the impugned order on technical ground. 19. This portion of the order is not supported by any reason. The only reason, if all is that he has set aside the impugned order on technical ground. 19. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons atleast sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance (Ravi Yashwant Bhoir -vs-Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 ). An order without reason is a nullity. But if the reason is "on technical ground" the impugned order is set aside, it is not correct. An order without following the principles of natural justice is an order which is void abinitio. It is non est. That cannot be a justification to issue the direction which he has done, which amounts to reviving the impugned order which is set aside. 20. In that view of the matter, the said portion of the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. It is non est. That cannot be a justification to issue the direction which he has done, which amounts to reviving the impugned order which is set aside. 20. In that view of the matter, the said portion of the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. However, setting aside the impugned orders in the writ petition by itself would not give a right to the Appellant to carry out human organs transplantation operation. Such a transplantation has to be done in terms of Certificate issued. The Certificate issued in this case only permits the Appellant to carry on transplantation of Kidney, Lever and Homograft (permitted only usage). There is no express permission granted to the Appellant Hospital for transplantation of Pancreas and therefore, under the guise of the said order or by this order, the Appellant shall not carry on any organ transplantation of Pancreas. The contention that the permission for performing the organ transplantation of lever includes Pancreas or when the application is made for issue of Certificate in respect of other abdominal organs includes Pancreas is a matter to be decided by the expert body like the Appropriate Authority. Prima facie, we are satisfied when there is no such express permission/license granted under the Certificate of Registration dated 25.03.2010, under the guise of such Certificate, the Appellant is not entitled to carry on pancreas organ transplantation. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order: (a) Appeal is partly allowed. (b) The order of the learned single Judge directing the Appellant not to perform any human organ transplantation surgeries for a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the said order is hereby set aside. (c) However, the Appellant shall not perform any pancreas organ transplantation surgeries till the complaint before the Appropriate Authority is disposed of on merits finally. (d) Though the learned single Judge had prescribed a period of ten weeks for the Appropriate Authority to pass a fresh order, as the said order was stayed, the Authorities have not proceeded with the matter. Therefore, we hereby direct the Appropriate Authority to give an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under sub- section (2) of Section16 of the Act to the Appellant as well as to the 4th Respondent and pass orders within ten weeks from the date of their appearance before the Authorities. Therefore, we hereby direct the Appropriate Authority to give an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under sub- section (2) of Section16 of the Act to the Appellant as well as to the 4th Respondent and pass orders within ten weeks from the date of their appearance before the Authorities. Both the parties shall appear before the Appropriate Authority on 03.10.2013 at 11.00 a.m. and the Appropriate Authority shall meticulously comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge and thereafter give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties and then pass appropriate orders within ten weeks therefrom. (e) All the contentions urged by both the parties are kept open to be agitated before the Appropriate Authority. (f) The Appropriate Authority shall decide the case on its merits, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and as well as in the order passed by the learned single Judge. (g) It is also made clear that this order will have no bearing on all the pending proceedings before any Forum, where the disputes are adjudicated and the same shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law and in no way, being influenced by this order or the order passed by the learned single Judge. (h) All the pending IAs are ordered to be filed in view of the fact that the order has been passed on the merits of the appeal.