1974 PLP 196 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑These are two review petitions for the review of an order of this Court in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 219 and 224 of 1971, which were heard and disposed of on the 28th of June 1972. Mr. A. K. Brohi appeared on behalf of the present petitioner who was the petitioner at that stage also and, in his usual meticulous manner, argued the petition exhaustively. The facts giving rise to the litigation were that in October 1961, the present petitioner had, as an informant, lodged a complaint with the Enforcement Directorate alleging that the respondent had obtained the transfer of house No. 15, Fazal Elahi Street, Ichhra, Lahore, by falsely representing himself to be a Government servant. The Settlement Commissioner (Policy), when this case was referred to him after investigation, had held that the respondent had made a misrepresentation to the effect that he was a Government servant, although he was found to be a displaced person. The transfer was accordingly cancelled. Both parties came to the High Court against this order. A learned Single Judge set aside this order and upheld the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent, in view of the fact that the finding of the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) was based merely upon an entry in the allotment order which showed the respondent as a refugee Government servant. There was no other material before the Settlement Commissioner as the relevant file was at the time not available. In the High Court, however, at the hearing stage, the file suddenly re‑appeared and documents obtained from it were filed. Thereupon the High Court called for the file and after examining it found that the respondent had never at any stage represented himself to be a Government servant. This decision was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal and this was the order against which leave to appeal was sought. We were taken through the entire facts of the case and elaborate arguments advanced in support of the various contentions; but we agreed with the High Court that the documents, on being examined, did not disclose that the respondent had ever made any such representation. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. The petitioner now seeks to have this order reviewed, and the only ground urged in support of the petition is that the High Court had travelled beyond the scope of its writ jurisdiction by interfering with an order of the Settlement Commissioner after taking additional evidence at that stage. Learned counsel has not however been able to place before us authority in support of the proposition that the High Court cannot do so in the writ jurisdiction, It is true that this Court has, in several cases pointed out that, where complicated questions of fact have to be investigated, that should be left to be done to the authorities concerned and not be undertaken by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. But there is no bar to the High Court taking evidence or even additional evidence at the writ stage when that evidence is merely taken to consider as to whether the order of the Authority challenged before the High Court is based upon relevant evidence or when the additional evidence is not of a complicated nature. In the present case, the question was a simple one as to whether the respondent had at any stage made a representation to the effect that he was a Government servant. The official file which had now been rediscovered was called by the High Court and examined to see if the Settlement Commissioner was right in taking the view that he had made any such representation. The documents on the file did not support this finding. The finding was accordingly rightly set aside. In the circumstances, we see no ground for granting a review. No other point has been urged. Both the review petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.