2005 PLP 3324 (YLR)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--The petitioners have challenged the vires of the order of the respondents dated 6-7-2004 through this Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Member Board of Revenue decided the case in the earlier round of litigation in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 12-10-1999 under the scheme of 1995 but the learned Member Board of Revenue has reviewed the order through the impugned order without adverting to the scheme of 1995 therefore, impugned order is without lawful authority and is passed by Member Board of Revenue without application of mind.

3. The learned law officer submits that the petitioners secured the order from the Member, Board of Revenue without disclosing real facts in view of the letter conveyed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 22-9-1990, therefore, order dated 12-10-1999 is without lawful authority, therefore, Member, Board of Revenue was justified to review the order dated 12-10-1999 in the impugned order with cogent reasons after application of mind.

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

5. In case both the orders of the Member Board of Revenue one earlier passed in favour of the petitioners dated 12-10-1999 and the impugned order dated 6-7-2004 are put in a juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the Member, Board of Revenue has not considered the effect of scheme of 1995 in the impugned order, this fact brings the case in the area that Member, Board of Revenue has accepted the review petition without application of mind. It is settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty bound to decide the cases after judicial application of mind after addition of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act is procedural in character, therefore, it has retrospective effect as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer 1998 SCMR 2419. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act read with Article 4 of the Constitution cast duty upon the public functionaries to decide the controversies between the parties with reasons as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager Karachi 1998 SCMR 2268. It is pertinent to mention here that Member Board of Revenue has decided the controversy between the parties in the capacity as Quasi-Judicial Authority. Lord Denning in "Breen's case" (1971) 1 All ER 1148 says, "the giving of reasons is one of fundamentals of good administration." The condition to record reasons introduces clarity and excludes arbitrariness and satisfies the party concerned against whom order is passed. To provide a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise or power by the public functionaries the condition of recording reasons is imposed on them, after addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act. It is also settled principle of law that Courts insisted upon disclosure of reasons in support of order as per law laid. down by this Court in judgment dated 23-2-2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2728 of 2005. It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State as envisaged by Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The judgment of this Court is binding upon each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution. The Member Board of Revenue has decided the controversy between the parties without application of mind and without adverting to the reasoning of the earlier order of the Member Board of Revenue, which is not in accordance with the mandate of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and by this C Court in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Meaning thereby that the review petition of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Member Board of Revenue. Parties are directed to appear before the Member Board of Revenue, who is directed to decide the review petition of the petitioner afresh after due application of mind as expeditiously as possible. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-457/L Order accordingly