2014SAC8040 (PLP)

RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN, C.J.

The learned Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan through the instant Review Petition assailed the interlocutory order dated 7-5-2014 passed by this court in C.P.L.A. No. 12 of 2013 whereby, the following direction was passed on the statement made by the Director, Education Department, Gilgit-Baltistan:- "(5) The Director, Education Department, Gilgit-Baltistan, present in Court states that the department had prepared the documents for the payment of the salaries of the petitioner and had submitted the same to the AGPR but certain objections were raised by the AGPR, Gilgit-Baltistan and on account thereof, the salaries could not be paid for the period in which the petitioners had been performing their duties regularly. (6) The Director, Education is directed to scrutinize the case of every individual and shall prepare the bills of the salaries of the petitioners for the period in which they have been performing their duties and the same shall be immediately transmitted to the AGPR Office for the payment of the salaries of the petitioners. He has further been directed that the compliance of the orders shall be reported through the Registrar of this Court for perusal of the bench."

2. The perusal of Paras Nos. 5 and 6 afore-referred clearly indicates that the Director Education Department Gilgit-Baltistan, while representing the department, made a statement before the court. After recording the statement of the Director Education, Gilgit-Baltistan in Para No. 5, the directions were made to be complied with in Para No.

6. The assertion of the learned Advocate-General is not tenable that the matter in hand had come to an end rather, the Director was asked to submit a compliance report of the order through the Registrar of this Court and the case was adjourned.

3. The contention raised by the learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan that the court had not given the opportunity of hearing to the party and the matter was disposed of without hearing the party. The presence of the learned Advocate General has been marked on the order sheet of the order dated 7-5-2014 which is indicative of the fact that he was heard and the Director Education in his presence had made the statement. The case is still pending for final adjudication. Since, the case has not finally been disposed of, the parties shall be given full opportunity to be heard but at this stage, the review petition, on the grounds enumerated in it, cannot be allowed as no such irregularity has been pointed out which demands the review of the order dated 7-5-2014. It is very essential to observe that when the learned Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan and the Director Education Gilgit-Baltistan were marked present in the court, it can hardly be a plea that they were not heard, particularly, when the order was passed in their presence.

4. It is well settled by now that mere filing of a review petition may not be taken as granted. The scope of review is very limited and review jurisdiction cannot be called upon as a matter of routine. The applicant, who seeks review of an order, must show that an error or mistake was apparent on the face of record for the reason that a review cannot be an alternate for an appeal nor it can akin to the re-hearing of the whole matter. The review of an order can only be exercised when an error or mistake has been shown floating on the surface of record and it was so patent that, if permitted to stay intact, would result in illegality and gross injustice. Moreover, in addition to a patent error or mistake, the applicant has to show that an important matter of evidence has been discovered, which, after exercise of due diligence, was left without the knowledge of the court or was not produced at the time when the order was made. In the instant case, no such illegality, irregularity, mistake or error has been shown to be floating on the face of record. The examination of order under review transpires that the same does not suffer from any infirmity warranting our interference.

5. In this view of the matter, the learned Advocate-General has failed to point out any material irregularity in the order dated 7-5-2014 constituting judicial fallibility, therefore, no ground is made out for the review of the same. The Civil Review bearing No.1 of 2014 stands dismissed. HBT/12/GB Petition dismissed.