2001 PLP 665 (MLD)

Muhammad Tafiq Pirzada v. Government of Pakistan 1999 CLC 583; Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94 and Malik Azam Jan's case 1995 CLC 234 ref. (b) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (P.O. 1 of 1983)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. P‑‑President of Pakistan while exercising jurisdiction under Art.27 was not bound or required to give hearing to the party before passing the order. (c) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (P.O. 1 of 1983)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 9 & 27‑‑‑Wafaqi Mofitasib has no power to review its earlier order. Ch. Muhammad Saeed Warraich for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondents. Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner approach Wafaqi Mohtasib for redressal of his grievance. Learned Wafaqi Mohtasib after providing personal hearing to all the concerned dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 9‑3‑1992, Petitioner being aggrieved filed review petition before the Wafaqi Mohtasib who reviewed the earlier order vide order dated 27‑12‑1993. The respondents being aggrieved filed representation before the President of Pakistan who accepted the same through the impugned order dated 27‑1‑2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as impugned order does not contain any reason. In support of his contention he relied upon 1999 CLC 583. "Muhammad Tariq Pirzada v. Government of Pakistan". He submits that the impugned order passed by the President without providing personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, same is hit by principle of natural justice.

2. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General submits that President of Pakistan has accepted review with reasons as the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no power to review its earlier order. He further submits that the President of Pakistan is not duty bound to pass an order after providing personal hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that there is no provision in the President Order 1 of 1983 on the basis of which Wafaqi Mohtasib has any power to review its earlier order. The impugned order contained this reason that the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no power to review its own order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order does not contain reason has no force. The reason being that the power to review was not a matter of mere procedure but of jurisdiction and unless the power was conferred expressly it could not be exercised. Necessarily, therefore, it is a substantive right and cannot by intendment be invoked as is being argued on the language of the provision. In Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a principle that the right of review is a substantive right and is always the creation of a relevant statute on the subject. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as in the impugned order the respondents have given reason while accepting the review of the respondents. In such type of appeals President of Pakistanis not bound to provide personal hearing to the petitioner as per principle laid down by this Court in Malik Azam Jan's case (1995 CLC 234). Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑56/L Petition dismissed.