P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

S. A. MAHMUD, J.

Since common questions of law are involved in this writ petition and in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1960, Haji Nari Khan v. The Commissioner, F. C. R, Quetta, they will be disposed of by one judgment, The facts in each case necessary for the purpose of deciding the questions in issue are as under :

2. In Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 a report under section 457, P. P. C., having been registered against Mehrab Khan petitioner at the instance of Taj Muhammad, respondent No. 1, the former was prosecuted under sections 457 and 497, P. P. C., in the Court of the S. D. M. and Extra Assistant Commissioner, Quetta. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 both belong to Baluch Tribe. Taj Muhammad, respondent No. 1 as complainant, applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta-Pishin, that the case be referred to a Council-of-Elders under section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, but the prayer was opposed by Mehrab Khan, and the application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated the 26th October 1959. Taj Muhammad, respondent No. 1, then moved the Commissioner, F. C. R., by application dated the 19th November 19059 under section 49, Frontier Crimes Regulation to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner, refusing to refer the case, against the petitioner to the Council-of-Elders, for decision in accordance with the Riwaj. He put in another similar application dated 1st October 1959. Having apparently become aware of the application made by respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted an application, dated the 19th October 1959, objecting to the reference of the case to a Jirga, and prayed that the case be left to proceed before a regular Court. This was followed by another application dated the 18th December 1959, in which detailed reasons were given in defence of the complainant's revision application. The Additional Commissioner, F. C. R., who exercised the power of Commissioner, F. C. R:, Quetta Division, having sent for the file by his order dated the 23rd May 1960, set aside the order of the District Magistrate, dated the 26th October 1959, and directed that the case should be tried under the F. C. R. Having taken note of the instructions contained in Serial No. 98 of the Green Book, he decided to refer the case to the Council-of Elders on the grounds that though the cause of action arose in `A' area, the parties were local tribesmen, usually governed by the F. C. R., that the case was one of siakari and of a serious nature, involving tribal Riwaj and was likely to fail on technical grounds in a regular Court, and, that it could more satisfactorily be decided by reference to a Jirga.

3. It appears that the petitioner was not apprised of this order, and on the 24th August 1960, he made an application to the Political Agent and District Magistrate, Quetta-Pishin, for transfer of the case pending against him from the Court of the E. A. C. and A. D. M., Quetta, and requested for the making of an order for the trial of the case by a Council-of-Elders under the F. C. R. Before this application was decided, he filed the present writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner, F. C. R., dated the 23rd May 1960 on the ground that the revision filed by the complainant had been heard and decided against the petitioner without hearing him, which was opposed to the principles of natural justice, and that as to offence was committed in 'A' area, it should have been tried m a regular Court and should not have been referred to a Council of-Elders.

4. In Writ Petition No. 10 of 1960, a report under section 302/34, P. P. C., having been made against Rozi Khan, Amir Muhammad Khan, Meharban and Ali Muhammad, respon dents Nos. 3 to 6, at Police Station Chaman, they were prosecuted for the murder of Abdullah Jan and Mst. Babbo, wife of Rozi Khan, committed within 'A' area of Chaman. While the case was proceeding in the Court of the Extra Assistant Com missioner and Magistrate 1st Class, Chaman respondents Nos. 3 to 6 moved the District Magistrate for the transfer of the case against them from the judicial side to the F. C. R., but the District Magistrate, Quetta-Pishin, rejected their application by his order dated the 15th March 1960, for the reason that the offence-had taken place in the town of Chaman. They moved the District Magistrate again for the transfer of the case under section 11, Frontier Crimes Regulation, but Mr. Darbar Ali Shah who had since succeeded Mr. Jamil Ahmad as District Magistrate, rejected it on the 20th June 1960, on the ground that he saw no reason to go against the order passed by his predecessor. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 then made an application to the Commissioner, F. C. R., under section 49, F. C. R., and Mr. Sher Zaman, Additional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Commissioner, F. C. n., accepted the revision, petition by his order dated the 15th September 1960. In the petition under section 49, F. C. R., Haji Nari Khan petitioner was cited as a respondent. The grounds for accepting the revision petition and transferring the case from the regular side to one under the F. C. R. for trial by a Jirga given by the Commissioner, F. C. R., are that the parties are local tribesmen, that the question of tribal riwaj viz., siakari was at issue and that a more satisfactory settlement was likely to be obtained by reference of the case to a Jirga than through a judicial trial.

5. Before the decision of the revision by the Commissioner, F. C. R., Haji Nari Khan made an application to the Commis sioner, F. C. R., on the 29th July 1960, opposing the transfer of the case from the judicial side to a Council-of-Elders for decision under the F. C. R.

6. The order of the Additional Commissioner as Com missioner, F. C. R., is challenged in these writ petitions on the grounds that the power to make an order under section 11 F. C. R., vests in the Commissioner of the Quetta Division and not in the Additional Commissioner and that as the District Magistrate had refused to act under section 11, F. C. R., there was no proceeding pending under the F. C. R., and that the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner, F. C. R. had no power to make the impugned order, which was consequently without jurisdiction. The order in Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 is also challenged on the ground that the petitioner not having been heard, the order is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

7. On behalf of the respondents in these writ petitions it is urged that the order made by the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner, F. C. R., were made in his capacity as Com missioner, F. C. R. and that as he had acted under section 49, F. C. R., he had power to revise the order of the District Magistrate and to direct in consequence that the cases be tried by a Council-of-Elders under the F. C. R. In Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 it is further contended that as the order of the Commissioner is not made either in judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but is made under the provisions of the F. C. R. in consideration of local requirements, and is a decision relating to the form in which the cases are to be decided, no principle of natural justice is involved, and that in any case the petitioners as well as the respondents having placed their point of view before the Commissioner before he decided the revisions, there is no breach of the principles of natural justice, and that it was not necessary for the Commissioner, F. C. R., to hear the parties before deciding the revisions.

8. The common question involved in the two writ petitions is whether the Additional Commissioner acting as Commissioner, F. C. R., had the power to order that the cases should be tried under the F. C. R. rather than on the judicial side. Before dealing with this question, it is necessary to state that by Notification No. 16/ j 50-H-Judl/56, dated the 29th September 1956, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the British Baluchistan (Regulation, 1913, as modified by the British Baluchistan Laws (Amendment) Regulation, 1936, read with the first entry in column No. 4 relating to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, of Schedule 1, annexed thereto, and para 4 (i) of the West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1955, the Governor of West Pakistan appointed the Additional Commissioner, Quetta Division, within his jurisdiction to be the Commissioner for the purposes of Chapter V I of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (No. III of 1901). This power was conferred on the Additional Commissioner, Quetta Division, within his jurisdiction, for the purposes of Chapter VI, and as section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation falls outside this Chapter, the power conferred on the Commissioner under section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation cannot be exercised by the Additional Commissioner. It is consequently urged that as the Additional Commissioner has no power to make a reference of a case to a Council-of-Elders, he does not possess any power under section 49, Frontier Crimes Regulation, to direct reference of a criminal case to a Council-of-Elders. It is argued that if it is was intended to confer such a power on him, he should have been given all the powers of the Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regulation and not the powers under Chapter VI of the Frontier Crimes Regulation only. This contention is common to both the writ petitions. In the first writ petition it was further contended that as the Deputy Commissioner had refused to refer the case to Council-of-Elders, there was no record of any proceeding under the Frontier Crimes Regulation for the Com missioner, F. C. R. to call for and to revise under section 49 F. C. R. The argument in substance is that his power in revision under section 49, F. C. R. exist only where the District Magistrate has referred a case to a Council-of-Elders under section 11, F. C. R., and not in a case, in which he has refused to refer the case.

9. The Frontier Crimes Regulation was extended to the British Baluchistan by the Chief Commissioner's Notification No. 9350, dated the 1st November 1901 and is with certain modification now in force in the Baluchistan area under Regulation II of 1913, as amended by Regulation . XV of 1936 and Baluchistan Laws Regulation (West Pakistan Amend ment) Ordinance, 1960, (XXIX of 1960), Subsection (1) of section 11, Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, provides as under :

"Where, in the opinion of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, it is inexpedient that the question of the guilt or innocence of any person or persons accused of any offence, or of any of several persons so accused; should be tried by the Court of any of the classes mentioned in section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Deputy Commissioner, may, or, if the Commissioner so directs, shall, by order, in writing, refer the question to the decision of a Council-of-Elders, and require the Council to come to a finding on the question after such enquiry as may be necessary and after hearing the accused person. The members of the Council-of-Elders shall, in each case, be nominated and appointed by the Deputy Commissioner." Under this section the Deputy Commissioner may refer the question of guilt of innocence of any person or persons accused of an offence to a Council-of-Elders, if, in his opinion, it is inexpedient that such a question should be tried by a Court of the classess mentioned in section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and where the Commissioner is of this opinion and so directs, the Deputy Commissioner shall refer the question to the decision of a Council-of-Elders. Thus the power to make an order under section 11, F. C. R., is conferred on the Deputy Commis sioner and the Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regula tion. Not only has the power of the Commissioner, F. C. R., vested from time to time in different authorities, but the power under section 11, F. C. R., and the power under Chapter V1 has vested in different persons. At the relevant time when orders in the two cases were made the power of the Commissioner, F. C.R., under Chapter VI of the F.C.R., vested in the Additional Commissioner, while his power under section 11, F. C. R., vested in the Provincial Government. This is the basis of the argument that the Additional Commissioner exercising powers of Com missioner under Chapter VI; F. C. R., has no power to refer a case to a Council-of-Elders.

10. The authorities on whome powers of Commissioner, F. C. R., have been conferred from time to time, as ascertain able, may be stated, as competency of the Additional Commis sioner to make the impugned orders is challenged. By virtue of the British Baluchistan Laws Regulation (II of 1913), as amended by the Baluchistan Laws (Amendment) Regula tion, 1936, (XV of 1936), read with entry 1 of the Column 4 of Schedule I to the Regulation, the Frontier Crimes Regula tion, 1901, applied to British Baluchistan with the following modifications :-- "All references to the Commissioner or the Court of the Commissioner shall be read as referring to the Chief Commissioner of the British Baluchistan and in addition for the purpose of the revisional jurisdiction under Chapter VI as referring to such officer or officers as the Chief Commissioner may appoint in this behalf." Therefore, the power of Commissioner under section 11, F. C. R., vested in the Chief Commissioner and the powers under Chapter VI in such officer as he may appoint. By the India (Adaptation of Indian) Laws Order, 1937, the word `Provincial Government' were substituted for the words `Chief Com missioner.' By three Notifications of Government of India Nos. XXXVI-A (36) 9621/Revenue, XXXVI-A (36) 9623/Revenue and XXXVI-A (36) 9623/Revenue, the Revenue Commissioner was appointed as Commissioner, F. C. R., for the purposes of Chapter VI of the Frontier Crimes Regulations in respect of revenue oases only for the different areas of Baluchistan. By the Government of India Notification No. 141-F dated the 9th September 1941, issued under section 94 (1) and section 95 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor-General directed that the Chief Commissioner of British Baluchistan shall, subject to the control of the Governor-General in his discretion and till further orders, exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Provincial Government under the provisions of laws as for the time being in force in British Baluchistan excepting the provisions specified in Schedule I annexed to the notification. Thus the Chief Commissioner was authorised to exercise the powers and discharge the function of the Provincial Government under the laws applicable to Baluchistan, including the F. C. R. By Notification No. 1-J6/54-II dated the 15th April 1954, the A. G. G. and Chief Commis sioner appointed the Revenue Commissioner in Baluchistan to be a Commissioner for purposes of Chapter VI, F. C. R. With the integration of British Baluchistan into West Pakistan on the enforcement of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, with effect from the 14th October 1955, the Chief Commissioner ceased to exist, and section 94 and 95 of the Government of India Act were repealed. Section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1955, further provided that as from the appointed day (i.e., the 14th October 1945) all references in any existing law or in any instrument to the Chief Commis sioner in relation to Baluchistan, unless the context indicated otherwise, be deemed to be references to the Governor of the Province or the Provincial Government, as the case may be. The Chief Commissioner having ceased to exist on the merger of Baluchistan with West Pakistan, was thus replaced by the Government of West Pakistan. The West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1955, was repealed by the West 'Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1956. The position remained the law under section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan (Adaptation and Repeal of Laws) Act, 1957. Thus, the Provincial Government took the place of the Chief Commissioner in Baluchistan and reference to the Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regulation at the relevant time was to be read as referring to the Provincial Government. By Notification No. 1082/TA/41/5 dated the 24th November 1955, the Governor of West Pakistan invested Mr. Sadullah Khan, Deputy Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Tribal Affairs, with powers of Commissioner for the purposes of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, for the Agencies and other Special Areas in West Pakistan with effect from the 14th October 1955. This was followed by Notification No. 1172-H-jj/337 dated the 4th February 1956, whereby the Governor of West Pakistan appointed Commissioners, Quetta and Kalat, within their jurisdiction to be Commissioners for Purposes of Chapter VI of the Frontier Crimes Regulation. By Notification No. 16/150-H-Judl/56, dated the 29th September 1956, the Governor of West Pakistan appointed the Additional Commissioner, Quetta Division, as Commissioner within his jurisdiction for purposes of Chapter VI, Frontier Crimes Regula tion. The impugned orders are valid, if they have been made by the Additional Commissioner, Quetta, as Commissioner, under Chapter VI, F. C. R. The order in Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 was made on the ' 23rd of May 1960 and in the other on the 15th September 1960. By para. 5 of memorandum No. 1/10-H(TA)/59, dated the 23rd July 1959, from the Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Home Department, Lahore, the powers under the Frontier Crimes Regulation were delegated to the Commissioner, Quetta Division; by the President of Pakistan to be exercised by him in the Special Areas under his jurisdiction but in respect of other Areas these powers do not appear to have been delegated to him.

11. By the Baluchistan Laws Regulation (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1960, (XXIX of 1960) in Schedule I to the Baluchistan Laws Regulation, 1913, in the entry in the fourth column, opposite the item relating to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, the following has been substituted :-- "All references to the Commissioner or to the Court of the Commissioner shall be read as referring to the Provincial Government or such officer or officers as the Provincial Govern ment may appoint in his behalf." This Ordinance was published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated the 23rd November 1960. In exercise of powers conferred on him by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Baluchistan Laws, Regulation, 1913, read with the first entry in column 4 relating to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, of Schedule I thereto, and section 2 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (Vest Pakistan Extension) Ordinance, 1960, the Governor of West Pakistan, by Notification No. Judl-1(53)59 dated the 5th December 1960, appointed the Commissioner, Quetta Division, and the Com missioner or the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, of Kalat Division to be Commissioner for the purposes of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, except sections 21 and 22 thereof for the areas within their respective jurisdiction, except the Special Area. Ordinance XXIX of 1960 .as well as the notification referred to immediately above came into force after the impugned orders were passed in the two writ petitions and are not relevant for our purposes.

12. It appears to us that though the Commissioner under section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation meant at the relevant time the Provincial Government and the power under section 11, F. C. R., did not vest in the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner under Chapter VI, F. C. R., the powers of revision under section

49. Frontier Crimes Regulation, conferred on him are not affected. It is admitted that he has undoubted power to revise an order made by the Deputy Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, including an order made under section 11, F. C. R. to refer a case to a Jirga. The Deputy Commissioner can either refer a case to a Council-of-Elders under section 11, F. C. R., or refuse to refer a case to the Council of-Elders. In either case he makes an order under section 11, F. C. R., and this order is 'subject to the revisional powers of the Commissioner, F. C. R., under section 49, F. C. R. The power of revision is expressly conferred by this section. It includes the power to revise or modify any decision, decree, sentence or order given, passed or made in any proceeding under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The power is, in general terms, subject only to sections 50 to 59, Frontier Crimes Regula tion. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner, F. C. R., has the power to revise an order made by the Deputy Commissioner to refer a case to a Council-of-Elders. If he can revise such an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, we see no reason why he cannot revise an order refusing to refer a case to a council of Elders. The contention to the contrary rests on the ground that he not having power to make an initial order of reference of a case to a Council-of-Elders under section 1 L F. C. R., cannot have the power of reference in revisional jurisdiction. It is no doubt true that the Additional Commissioner, F. C. R, who has been invested 'with powers of the Commissioner, F. C. R., under section 49 of the F. C. R., for the purpose of Chapter VI of the Regulation has no power to make an order under section 11, F. C. R., but this by itself is no ground for holding that he has not the power to make the order under section 49, F. C. R. in revising an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, an authority subordinate to him, either directing reference of a case or refusing to refer a case to a Jirga. There is no difficulty in holding that though he may not have the power under section 11 F. C. R., to refer a case to Jirga, he can examine the order of the Deputy Commissioner made under section 11 F. C. R., and interfere in revision. We, therefore, find no force in the contention that the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner F. C. R., for purpose of, Chapter VI, F. C. R., in exercise of powers conferred on him by Notification dated the 29th September 1956 mode under subsection (1) of section 3 of the British Baluchistan Regulation, 1913, as modified by the British Baluchistan Laws (Amendment) Regulation, read with the first entry in column 4 of Schedule I annexed thereto, relating to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, had no power to refer the cases to Jirga when the Deputy Commissioner had refused to refer them to the Jirga under section 11 F. C. R.,

13. The second contention raised in Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 is with reference to the wording of section 49 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, which provides as under :- "The Commissioner may call for the record of any proceeding under this Regulation and revise any decision. decree, sentence or order given, passed or made therein." Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the power is exerciseable by the Commissioner only where a case has been referred to a Council-of-Elders, because in such a case a record exists of the proceeding under the Regulation, which can be revised, but where an order of reference has not been made there is no proceeding, which can be revised. The plain language of the section shows that the Commissioner is authorised to revise any decision, decree, sentence, or order given, passed or made under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The section is widely worded and comprehensive in its application. The refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to refer the case to a Council-of Elders is as much an order under the F. C. R., as an order not to refer the case to a Jirga. The orders in either case are orders under section 11, F. C. R., which are open to revision under section 49.

14. In Writ Petition No. 6 of 1960 learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the order of the Commis sioner was illegal as the petitioner had not been heard before making the impugned order, which was bound to act to his prejudice. Learned council for the respondents argued that the decision of the Commissioner was neither a judicial nor a quasi judicial determination of the rights of the parties and did not invite the application of the maxim audi alrerm, which involves the principle that no man shall be condemned without being heard. In this connection learned counsel for respondent No. 3 drew our attention to the observations of A. R. Cornekus, J., (Now Chief Justice of Pakistan) in Dosso's case (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 533, 561), that the correction of an order under section 49, F. C. R., in its nature and quality (in view of considerations of administration of area maintenance of law and order and public policy) cannot lie within the four corners of a precise appeal as understood in the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not consider it necessary to decide in this case whether an order made in revision under section 49., F. C. R., revising an order made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11, F. C. R., is a judicial or a quasi judicial determination of the rights of the parties which makes it necessary for the Commissioner to hear the parties before making the order. We have examined this question in Writ Petition No. 5 of 1960 Chargul v. The Commissioner. F C. R., and others. In this case it is obvious that Taj Muhammad was not heard by the Commissioner in person. His application for revision was heard in his absence. Haji Nari Khan petitioner had also made application in defence, in which he had placed his point of view- for the consideration of the Commissioner and we have no doubt that he gave the consideration to these applica tions. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the Commissioner did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner against the acceptance of the revision filed by Taj Muhammad. A personal hearing before deciding a matter is not a necessary requirement of principle of natural justice All that is necessary is a full and fair opportunity of making a representation or showing case. What is a full and fair oppor tunity depends upon the facts of each case. In some cases it may be enough if a party has placed his point of view and has shown cause for the consideration of the authority, and no prejudice is shown to have been caused. We are not satisfied that the result would have been different if the peti tioner had been heard in person Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Dr. Saeed-ud-Din Swaleh (P L D 195) Kar. 669). We, therefore, hold that in this particular case it was not necessary for the Commissioner to hear the petitioner, and the order made in revision does not violate the principles of natural justice. We have came to this c inclusion also for the reason that the petitioner himself requested the Deputy Commissioner by application dated the 24th August 1960 to transfer the case from the Court of the A. D. M. and Extra Assistant Commissioner and to refer it for decision to a Council-of-Elders. We, therefore, find no force in this contention and the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

15. In Writ Petition No. 10 of 1960 it was further contended that as the offence had been committed in the town of Chaman, the Additional Commissioner as Commissioner, F. C. R., had violated the rules in revising the order and referring the case to a Council-of-Elders. He referred us to serial No. 7 of the Green Book, a circular order issued by the Agent to the Governor-General and Chief Commissioner in Baluchistan dated the 18th June 1936, which conveyed his wishes that certain principles should be followed in referring cases to a Council-of-Elders. One of these principles is that in certain areas it was desirable to apply the ordinary law as contained in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, and it was directed that in Chaman Cantonment and Town the regular law should normally be enforced and investigation of the-offences should be male by the police. But it was provided that the discretion of the Political Agent remained absolute, and subject to a due consideration of the principles enunciated, he might, for good reasons, withdraw any case for trial by a Jirga. We do not regard the circular order as having the binding force of rules, as claimed by the learned counsel. The Commissioner, F. C. R., as respondent No. 3, has in defence of his order relied upon serial No. 96 of the Green Book, which is an abstract of an order dated the 20th October 1955 made by the Agent to the Governor-General, providing that in exceptional cases where an offence has been committed in `A' area it may be referred to a Jirga under section 11, F. C. R.; e. g., when the offence is a serious one and there is a strong suspicion against the accused that the case against him is likely to fail on technical grounds, or when some question of tribal riwaj in relation to women was in issue and a more satisfactory settlement was likely to be obtained by a reference to a Jirga than through a judicial trial. There is justification for the making of the order, which is not proved to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Be that as it may-, the power having vested in the Commissioner, F. C. R., to revise an order made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11, F. C. R , it is not open to us to go into the question whether it was proper for him in view of the various instruc tions given from time to time by the Agent to the Governor General to make the order under reference or not. We can only interfere with the order if it is, not made in jurisdiction of is not authorised by the law or suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or involves a violation of the principles of natural justice, in cases where a writ of certiorari is sought.

16. No argument is raised in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1960 that the violation of the principles of natural justice has taker place. It is apparent that the petitioner had made a representation, and shown cause to the Commissioner, F. C. R., before he made the order under revisions, that the case should not referred to a Council-of-Elders and, therefore, he had been heal and his objections were examined by the Commissioner, F. C. R before the order was made. We are not inclined to hold that the order suffers from any illegality on the ground that he was not heard in person.

17. In view of what we have said above, we dismiss Writ Petition No. 10 of 1960 with costs.

18. We have held in these cases that violation of the principles of natural justice is not involved, but there may be cases in which it may be necessary for the Commissioner, F: C. R., acting in revision under section 49; F. C. R., to hear a party, who is going to be adversely affected by an order to be made by him. Where an order has been made to the prejudice of a party and the order is to be confirmed, it may not be necessary for the Commissioner to hear him, as has been held by Shabir Ahmad, J. and one of us in Mst. Amir Begum v. Umar Din and others (P L D 1961 Lah. 360). Where, however, an order has been made in favour of a party and an application for revision is made against the order, it is necessary to hear him before revising the order to his detriment. Where a judicial or a quasi-judicial determination or rights of parties are in issue, it is the duty of the authority to observe the principles of natural justice, and one of these principles is that no one shall be condemned unheard. The Commissioner, F. C. R., must, therefore, bear in mind this principle in deciding revisions under section 49, F. C. R. A.H. Order accordingly.