P L D 1984 Lahore 449 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑The appellant is a Sub‑Inspector in the Sutlej Rangers. He has been put on trial for an offence under section 14(m) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959. The trial is being held by the Commandant who has been invested with the powers of Magistrate 1st Class under section 20(1) of the Ordinance.

2. At the commencement of the trial the appellant moved an application before the Commandant wherein he raised several objections with regard to the competency of the latter to try him. His objections were overruled by the Commandant by an order, dated 20‑12‑1979. The appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Commandant. His petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on 23‑I‑1980. He has now moved this Intra‑Court appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. There is an objection to the competency of this appeal. Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 states that an appeal (that is, an Intra‑Court Appeal) shall not be available or competent if the constitu tional petition brought before the High Court arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court; tribunal or authority against the original order. The appellant is being tried in accordance with the provisions of section 20 of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance. Subsections (4) and (5) thereof read as follows: (4) In all cases decided by the Commandant or any other officer as a Magistrate, a person aggrieved may within thirty days of the order appeal to the Director General or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Federal Government. (5) The Federal Government may, on revision, set aside an order passed in pursuance of the powers under this section on the ground of material irregularity." A perusal of these two subsections indicates that it was open to the appellant to challenge the order of the Commandant before the Federal Government which has been invested with revisional jurisdiction in respect of orders suffering from material irregularity; further in case the trial ends in conviction he will have a right of appeal before the Director‑General or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Federal Government. This being the position this Intra‑Court Appeal is not maintainable on account of the bar contained in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the power of revision conferred upon the Federal Government under section 28(5) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance was not of the type envisaged in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance and as such this appeal was entirely competent. In support of this contention he referred to the case of Muhammad Saleem Mirza v. Presiding Officer Summary Military Court (P L D 1979 Lah. 293). This contention is without any merit. The revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Government under section 20(5) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance is not in its scope limited in any way. The appellant could, if he so wanted, move the Federal Government for relief against the order of the Commandant which he thought suffered from an error of jurisdiction. Thus, this was a case where at the instance of the appellant a revision did lie. The case cited by the learned counsel is easily distinguish able as the review provided by the law applicable in that case was, as found by the Division Bench, merely an internal departmental affair and the person affected could neither ask for it nor participate in the proceedings there in pursuance thereof.

5. For the reasons stated above this appeal is not competent and is accordingly dismissed with costs. M.Z.M Appeal dismissed.