1991 PLP 1395 (CLC)

Syed Seerat Hussain Naqvi and Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Respondent No.l. Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Respondent No.2. Nemo for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 1st April, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against order dated 22‑1‑1989 of District Collector, Kasur, whereby petitioner's revision petition against the order passed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council Ward No.7, Khuddian on 3‑3‑1988 to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month to his wife w.e.f. 1‑8 1986, was dismissed.

2. The background leading to the institution of the instant petition is that Mst Kausar Bibi, respondent No.1 herein, filed an application before Chairman, Arbitration Council Ward No.2 Khuddian on 21‑1‑1987 claiming maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,200 per mensem w.e.f. 1‑8‑1986. Her case was that she had been turned out of the marital home by the petitioner on 1‑8 1986 at a time when she was with child and that he had not maintained her ever since. The income of the petitioner from a photostat machine, installed in the premises of District Courts, Kasur, was claimed to be Rs.10,000 per mensem and it was further averred that he makes more money by working in a 'Matab' run by his father at their house and that he could afford to pay Rs.1,200 per mensem as maintenance for his wife and female child.

3. During the proceedings before the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No.2, Khuddian, the parties arrived at some compromise on 20‑4‑1987 and the golden ornaments weighing 10 Tolas of the value of Rs.25,000 which had been given by the petitioner to respondent No.1 in lieu of her dower, were taken back by him in the presence of M/s. Shaikh Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Saeed, Chaudhry Gulzar Ahmed, Sardar Muhammad Hussain and Fazal Hussain Dar, members of Panchyat, on 11‑5‑1987. Thereafter the petitioner succeeded in obtaining an order of transfer of the proceedings from the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No.2, to respondent No.2/Chairman, Arbitration Council Ward No.7, Town Committee, Khuddian vide order dated 3‑10‑1987 of Deputy Commissioner, Kasur.

4. After the transfer of proceedings as above, the present petitioner did appear before respondent No.2 on 15‑10‑1987, 22‑10‑1987, 7‑11‑1987, 7‑12‑1987, 7‑1‑1988 and 28‑1‑1988 but did not show any inclination for reconciliation of ‑the matter. Instead, the petitioner alongwith his arbitrators, walked out of the proceedings on 7‑2‑1988 which necessitated issuance of another notice to him by respondent No. 2 for 28‑2‑1988. The petitioner refused to accept notice with the result that ex parte proceedings were taken against him. After recording ex parte evidence the Arbitration Council passed the order dated 3‑3‑1988 allowing maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1,000 per mensem w.e.f. 1‑8‑1986.

5. On 29‑7‑1987, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 alleging that the decree passed against him was void and without any jurisdiction and that he could not pay the amount decreed as the same was beyond his means. On 22‑1‑1989, the respondent District Collector, Kasuir, dismissed the revision petition.

6. The sole ground urged in support of this petition is that order dated 22‑1‑1989 is not a speaking order at all and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. It has been argued that except for noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, no decision whatsoever has been rendered thereon by the Collector. Syed Seerat Hussain Naqvi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has tried to controvert the contention on behalf of the petitioner by arguing that as the petitioner had voluntarily walked' out of proceedings before the Arbitration Council and had also failed to produce ally evidence in support of his case, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. According to him, the impugned order dated 3‑3‑1988 does indicate conscious application of mind by respondent No.2 District Collector, Kasur.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the available record, I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed by the petitioner has not been decided in accordance with law by the Collector. The impugned order of the District Collector does not show any application of mind by him to the respective contentions of the parties which had been noted by him. Unfortunately, the matter was disposed of by making a laconic observation that there was no justification for interfering in the order of the Chairman. Such a disposal of a contentious matter involving valuable rights of the litigants cannot be countenanced in law. It needs no gainsaying that an order passed by a judicial/quasi‑judicial Authority must not only manifest independent application of mind but should also contain reasons in support of the same. The failure to do so results in vitiating the order. See Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (P L D 1970 SC 173), Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lyallpur and 2 others (P L D 1975 Lah. 44) and Dr. Muhammad Ismail v. Deputy Commissioner Jhang and another (P L D 1976 Lah.758).

8. For the aforesaid reasons this petition succeeds to the extent that the order dated 22‑1‑1989 of District Collector, Kasur is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the revision petition of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the District Collector. It shall be decided by him afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./R‑296/L Case remanded