P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.‑The present petition arises under the following circumstances The petitioner was in occupation of a tenement in Supari wala Building, Jivan Street, Karachi. Respondent No. 2 made an application to the Rehabilitation Department that the petitioner had got this tenement on pugree and that the tenement being evacuee property, the same may be allotted to him. The tenement in question was allotted to respondent No. 2 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 28th August 1956, but on an appeal by the petitioner to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, the allotment was set aside on 18th October 1956. The respondent ‑No. 2 being aggrieved by the appellate order filed a revision before the Custodian which was fixed for final disposal on 30th March 1957. The petitioner was absent on the date of hearing. The Custodian set aside the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and maintained the allotment in favour of respondent No.

2. The petitioner thereafter made an application for restoration of the revision application which was disposed of in his absence. The learned Custodian passed the following order on this application for restoration on 27th April 1957 :‑ "Heard the Advocate. I cannot Fee how this application can lie, Rejected", The main contention of the learned Advocate, Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi, for the petitioner is that the learned Cus todian has failed to exercise the jurisdiction that is vested in him inasmuch as he had power to restore the revision application which was disposed of ex parte for sufficient ground having been made out by the petitioner. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised by Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui but we find that there is not much force in this contention. Mr. Riaz Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the Custodian, tried to meet the contention of Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui on twofold grounds. He, in the first place, contended that the Custodian while hearing the revision petition from an order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner was acting only as persona designata in place of the Central Government, and therefore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable to him. In the second place, he contended that the rules framed under the Rehabilitation Ordinance are not wide enough to confer the powers of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to restore the revision which was allowed in the absence of the petitioner. We would consider these two contentions separately. So far as the first contention is concerned that the Custodian acts as a persona designata when hearing revision applications under section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1956, whatever the position may have been before the present section viz : section 12 was incorporated in Act XVII of 1956, the position of the Custodian while hearing the revision against the order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner is quite clear. The relevant provision of the Rehabilitation Act of 1956 is section 12 which runs as under :‑ "

12. Powers of revision by Government in specified cases.‑(1) The Central Government may, by order notified in the Official Gazette, specify the cases or class of cases in respect of which a revision petition may he made, and unless such order is published, no revision petition against the order of any Rehabilitation Commissioner or Rehabilitation Board shall lie. (2) A revision petition made in pursuance of subsection (1) may, after such inquiry as may be considered necessary, be disposed of by the Custodian concerned". Subsection (2) of this section makes it very clear that the power to hear the revision in respect of cases that may have been specified by the Central Government under that Act vests only in the Custodian and not in any person that the Central Government may appoint. So far as section 12 is concerned, the only power the Legislature has conferred on the Central Government is in respect of cases or class of cases which it may notify in respect of which revision would lie. The above section does not give any power to the Central Government to nominate persons to hear revision applications in respect of cases that may have been notified by the Central Government. The Custodian has got statutory power to hear revision applications in respect of cases that may be notified under section 12,(1) of Act XVII of 1956. We are definitely of the view that the Custodian is not persona designata of the Central Government but hears revision application as Custodian, So far as the second question is concerned, we are of the view, after considering the rule that has been framed under this Act, viz., Rule 9, that the Civil P. C. has been made applicable, so far as revision applications are concerned, only in a limited way. The provisions of the Civil P. C‑1 c been made applicable only so far as rejection or return of the application and appeal preferred to the Rehabilitation Authority is concerned. Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui has not shown us any other provision of the rule made under the Rehabili tation Ordinance ‑which would be made applicable to revision applications. We might mention that the rules framed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance would not be applicable to the applications which the Custodian hears under the; Rehabilitation laws. Under sub‑clause (2) of section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act XVII of 1956 he would be considered to be acting within the scope and provision of that Act or the rules framed thereunder. We are therefore of the view that the Custodian was rightly of the view that B the application for restoration was not maintainable. This petition may have been also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has made a false statement in his petition before us. The petitioner stated in his affidavit before us that he could not be present before the Custodian when the revision application came up for hearing as he was at Lahore and sent his son to ask for adjournment. We find, after a perusal of the application he made for restoration of the revision application, that there is no mention of this fact. We are satisfied that he had not sent his son to ask for adjournment of the revision application fixed before the E Custodian for disposal. It is now well recognised principle that a person who invokes the powers of the Court on writ petition must come with clean hands. We would, for the reasons given above, dismiss the petition with costs. The interim order is withdrawn. A. H. Petition dismissed