JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. On 26.08.2019, dasti notice was issued for the service of respondent No.3. The notice stands received back with the report that respondent No.3 has refused to accept the said notice. In these circumstances, as there is a valid service of notice upon respondent No.3 and yet he has not chosen to appear before the Court, he is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that respondent No.2 is not complying with the directions issued by the H.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, vide Annexure P-2, passed in Revision Petition No.01 of 2017, titled as Baldev Singh Versus Regional Transport Officer, Una & another, decided on 19.01.2019, vide which, learned Appellate Authority has directed respondent No.2 herein to decide the case afresh by passing a speaking order within three months from the date of passing of said order, post remand of the matter to respondent No.2. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2 shall decide the case pending before it, post remand, positively on or before 31.10.2019. It is clarified that the time so granted by this Court is sacrosant and no extension whatsoever shall be granted to the Authority to adjudicate upon the matter pending before it. This stop order is being passed by the Court because though respondent No.1 had granted three months time to the said Authority to decide the case after remand vide order dated 19.01.2019, but despite 7 months having elapsed as from the date of passing of the said order by respondent No.1, no decision has been taken in the matter by respondent No.2. This Court impresses upon respondent No.2, who happens to be a Quasi Judicial Authority, to abide by the principle of Judicial Discipline, which commands and demands that orders passed by the Superior Authority, are to be given due respect and whenever directions are passed by the Superior Authority for adjudication of a matter to a Quasi Judicial Authority within a time bound period, then said time limit has to be adhered to by the said Authority and in case there is any difficulty faced by it in not deciding the case within the time, so allowed by the Superior Authority, then it has to approach the Superior Authority for extension of time. The Authority cannot sit over the matter and take ages to decide the cases. This Court further observes that in case it is noticed in future that Quasi Judicial Authorities are not deciding the cases expeditiously and there is no justification as to why the same is not being done, then this Court will not hesitate from withdrawing Quasi Judicial Powers from the erring officers. Petition stands disposed of as also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. On 26.08.2019, dasti notice was issued for the service of respondent No.3. The notice stands received back with the report that respondent No.3 has refused to accept the said notice. In these circumstances, as there is a valid service of notice upon respondent No.3 and yet he has not chosen to appear before the Court, he is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that respondent No.2 is not complying with the directions issued by the H.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, vide Annexure P-2, passed in Revision Petition No.01 of 2017, titled as Baldev Singh Versus Regional Transport Officer, Una & another, decided on 19.01.2019, vide which, learned Appellate Authority has directed respondent No.2 herein to decide the case afresh by passing a speaking order within three months from the date of passing of said order, post remand of the matter to respondent No.2. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2 shall decide the case pending before it, post remand, positively on or before 31.10.2019. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2 shall decide the case pending before it, post remand, positively on or before 31.10.2019. It is clarified that the time so granted by this Court is sacrosant and no extension whatsoever shall be granted to the Authority to adjudicate upon the matter pending before it. This stop order is being passed by the Court because though respondent No.1 had granted three months time to the said Authority to decide the case after remand vide order dated 19.01.2019, but despite 7 months having elapsed as from the date of passing of the said order by respondent No.1, no decision has been taken in the matter by respondent No.2. This Court impresses upon respondent No.2, who happens to be a Quasi Judicial Authority, to abide by the principle of Judicial Discipline, which commands and demands that orders passed by the Superior Authority, are to be given due respect and whenever directions are passed by the Superior Authority for adjudication of a matter to a Quasi Judicial Authority within a time bound period, then said time limit has to be adhered to by the said Authority and in case there is any difficulty faced by it in not deciding the case within the time, so allowed by the Superior Authority, then it has to approach the Superior Authority for extension of time. The Authority cannot sit over the matter and take ages to decide the cases. This Court further observes that in case it is noticed in future that Quasi Judicial Authorities are not deciding the cases expeditiously and there is no justification as to why the same is not being done, then this Court will not hesitate from withdrawing Quasi Judicial Powers from the erring officers. Petition stands disposed of as also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any.