2006 PLP 996 (MLD)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of Member Board of Revenue dated 9-2-2005 through this constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Member Board of Revenue has countersigned the order of the tribunals below without application of mind and without adverting to the grounds taken by the petitioner in the memorandum of the revision petition, which is not in consonance of the Mandatory provisions of law and laid down by the superior Courts.

3. The learned counsel of respondents Nos.3 and 4 submits that the Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order after application of mind and after perusing the original record as is evident from the operative part of the impugned order dated 9-2-2005. He further submits that the constitutional petition is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel of respondent No.5 submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of tribunals below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, the constitutional petition is not maintainable.

5. The learned law officer submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts of the tribunals below, while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution.

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

7. In case, the operative part of the impugned order of paragraph No.5 and grounds of revision petition, be put in juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order without adverting to the grounds taken by the petitioner in the revision petition. This fact brings the case in the area that the Member Board of Revenue has countersigned the order of tribunal below, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's case" (PLD 1964 SC 829). It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the cases of citizens after judicial application of mind. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act has been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court and laid down principle that section 24-A of the General Clauses Act is procedural in nature, therefore, it has retrospective affect as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Zainyar Khan v. Chief Engineer" (1998 SCMR 2419). It is also duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the cases of citizens after judicial application of mind, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M/s. Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi" (1998 SCMR 2268) .

8. In view of what has been discussed above the impugned order of Member Board of Revenue is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is passed in violation of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court supra cited. It is also settled principle of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 & 190 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of Member Board of Revenue is set aside. Meaning thereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be pending adjudication.

9. The parties are directed to appear before the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue, Punjab on 8-8-2005, who is directed to decide the revision petition afresh in accordance with the law without being influenced by the observations of this Court as early as possible preferably within 4 months. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./M-1209/L Order accordingly.