2004 PLP 174 (CLC)

Mirza Manzoor Ahmed for Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are, that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala, who accepted the same vide order, dated 18‑4‑2001. The respondents being aggrieved filed a representation under Article 32 of the President's Order No.1 of 1983 on 8‑5‑2001. The respondents accepted the same without providing proper hearing to the petitioner vide order, dated 3‑1‑2003.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents accepted the representation of the respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. The learned Standing Counsel of the respondents submits that the recommendations of Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala is not binding on the department which is only recommendatory in nature. He further, submits that the respondents passed the order in the administrative capacity therefore, question of providing personal hearing to the petitioner does not arise. He further submits that it is not possible for the Appellate Authority to provide proper hearing to all the concerned, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑‑ (1) Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Parvaiz' 1999 SCMR 2189, (2) Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pervaiz 1999 SCMR 2744; (3) Pakistan and others v. Public‑at- large and others PLD 1987 SC 304, (4) Pakistan Chrome Mine's case 1983 SCMR 1208. It is settled principle of law that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. It is also settled principle of law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the super structure shall have to fall on the ground automatically as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑‑ (1) Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104, (2) Crescent Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue Islamabad and 2 others PLD 1982 Lah. 1.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order, dated 3‑1‑2003 and the notice issued on the basis of this order, dated 23‑1‑2003 are set aside. Meaning thereby the representation filed by the C respondents shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the competent authority. The parties are directed to appear before Raja Qamar Sultan Section, Officer in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 4‑8‑2003, who is directed to provide proper hearing to all the concerned including the respondents and the petitioner and then send his recommendations to the competent authority for decision. With these observations writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./A‑903/L Order accordingly.