2002 PLP 2307 (YLR)

Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a claim against the respondent‑Corporation before the Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab, who accepted the complaint of the petitioner vide order, dated 30‑5‑2000. The respondent Corporation being aggrieved filed a representation before Governor of the Punjab under section 32 of the Punjab Ombudsman Act, 1997 which was accepted by the Governor's Secretariat Punjab vide order, dated 11‑7‑2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without providing proper hearing to the petitioner and without issuance of notice to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the impugned order is valid in the eyes of law and was passed against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law. He further submits that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order in the administrative capacity, therefore, the question of providing hearing to the parties, is not permissible, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Learned Additional Advocate- General submits that it is not possible for respondent No.2 to decide the representation after providing proper hearing to all the concerned, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that proper hearing be granted to the petitioner before reversing the findings of Provincial Ombudsman in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada (1999 SCMR 2189). The contention of the learned Additional Advocate‑General that it is not possible for the Governor of Punjab to provide proper hearing to all the persons at the time of deciding the representation filed by the aggrieved persons against the recommendation of the Provincial Ombudsman. It is settled principle of law that representation was routed through the concerned Secretary alongwith his marks, therefore, the concerned Secretary before forwarding the representation of the aggrieved persons shall have to provide personal hearing either himself or designate an officer not less than 19‑Grade to provide proper hearing to all the concerned. Since, the aforesaid procedure was not adopted at the time of reversing the findings of the Provincial Ombudsman against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 11‑7‑12001 is set aside meaning thereby the representation filed by respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. The concerned Secretary is directed to send the recommendation after providing hearing to all the concerned either himself or through an officer not below the rank of 19‑Grade in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of in the above said terms.

8. Office is directed to send copy of this order to. Chief Secretary of the Punjab Law Secretary and Secretary Industries for necessary action and compliance. The learned A.A.‑G. is also directed to notify the order of this Court to the aforesaid authorities for necessary action and compliance. H.B.T./R‑189/L Order accordingly.