1992 PLP 2102 (SCMR)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, HAZARA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 2102 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, HAZARA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 2102 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 2102 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 2102 (SCMR) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, HAZARA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Z. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 22‑1‑1990, passed in W.P. No.61 of 1987). Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983... ‑‑‑‑Art.32‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Directive of Wafaqi Mohtasib impugned through Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution of Pakistan‑‑‑Petitioner failed to avail remedy of making representation before President of Pakistan against the impugned order as provided by Art.32, Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 which was an adequate remedy‑‑‑Held, Constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary, High Court rightly chose not to interfere with the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑‑‑This petition by WAPDA seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 22‑1‑1990, dismissing the Authority's writ petition to the effect that the supplementary award rendered by the Commissioner, Hazara Division, awarding compensation in respect of the property of Abdul Diyan Shah, respondent No.3 herein, and directive issued by Wafaqi Mohtasib in this behalf, be declared as without lawful authority.
2. The facts are that the property comprising land and houses belonging to respondent No.3 alongwith some other area owned by Akazi Tribe situate in tribal area of Manshera District was acquired for the purposes of Tarbela Dam and compensation assessed therefor was paid by the Authority to the Deputy Commissioner, Manshera, for onward transmission to the land‑owners. The Deputy Commissioner passed on the amount to 48 Tribal Jerga members in their representative capacity for its disbursement to the individual owners. Respondent No.3 complained to the Chief Martial Law Administrator and then to Wafaqi Mohtsib that he was 'not paid anything in respect of his property. On a direction issued by the Wafaqi Mohtsib, the Commissioner, Hazara Division, made a supplementary award dated 29‑9‑1981 assessing the compensation for the property of respondent No.3.
3. The Authority filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, challenging the validity of the supplementary award and the directive of the Wafaqi Mohtsib. The High Court relied upon Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtsib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, which ordains that any person aggrieved by an order of Wafaqi Mohtsib may within 30 days file a representation before the President of Pakistan, who may pass such order thereon, as deemed fit by him. The High Court maintained that the remedy provided by Article 32 was an adequate remedy which the petitioner failed to avail of, consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 22‑1‑1990.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, we do not feel persuaded to differ, with the High Court. Grant of relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary. In exercise of this discretion, the High Court chose not to interfere with the order of the Wafaqi Mohtsib, and the consequential supplementary award made by the Commissioner as another adequate remedy under Article 32 was available to the Authority. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the High Court's refusal to issue the writ prayed for. There is no substance in this petition. Leave prayed for is refused and the petition dismissed. M.B.A./W‑103/S Petition dismissed.