2005 PLP 2567 (YLR)

The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohatasib-e-Aala, who accepted the same vide order dated 25-6-2003. The agency/respondent No.3 being aggrieved filed a representation before the Appellate Authority under Article 32 of the President Order No.1 of 1983, which was accepted vide order dated 7-4-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the representation of the agency/respondent No.3 was accepted by the authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney General entered appearance on Court's call. He submits that the authority has accepted the representation of the agency/respondent No.3 in the administrative capacity, therefore, providing personal hearing to the petitioner does not arise. He further submits that complaint of the petitioner was accepted by the Wafaqi Mohtasib-e-Aala, which was set aside by the authority under Article 32 of the President Order 1, 1983, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that Appellate Authority has accepted the representation of the agency/respondent No.3 after application of mind with reasons, therefore, the ratio of the Muhammad Tariq Pirzada's case is not attracted. He further submits that respondent has already filed Intra-Court Appeal and the petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court qua the view taken by this Court.

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

5. It is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and until the same is prohibited by the wording of the statute itself. It is pertinent to mention here that Article 32 of the President Order No.1 of 1983 does not contain any prohibition qua providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, impugned order is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazl-ur-Rehman PLD 1964 SC

410. Mere reading of the impugned order itself reveals that it was passed by the competent authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, impugned order is hit by the principle of natural justice, which is not in consonance with the law laid clown by the superior Courts in the following judgments: Pakistan Chrome Mines v. The Enquiry Officer PLD 1983 SC 1208 Pakistan and others v. Public at Large PLD 1987 SC 304 University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC

90. The question of aw has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada" 1999 SCMR 2189 "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada" 1999 SCMR 2744 "Mst. Nusrat Imtiaz v. Government of Pakistan" NLR 2000 Civil

54. It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. Even Obiter Dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon this Court. As mentioned above, the impugned order is hit by the principle of natural justice, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also settled principle of law that mere filing of a petition or Intra-Court Appeal, does not mean that the law declared by this Court is ceased to exist. It is also settled principle of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy and is a social binding contract between the organ of the State and people of Pakistan. By virtue of Article 5(2) of the Constitution, every body is bound to obey the command of the Constitution as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case" PLD 1975 SC

383. Article 4 of the Constitution also cast duty upon each and every authority to act in accordance with law. Law means not only the statute law alone but is used in its generic sense as connoting all that is treated as law in this country including even the judicial principles laid down from time to time by the Superior Courts, as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Manzoor Elahi's case" PLD 1975 SC 66.

6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the order of the Appellate Authority is without lawful authority and the same is set aside. Meaning thereby the representation filed by the agency/respondent No.3 before the Appellate Authority shall be deemed to he pending adjudication. I have taken the aforesaid view in the various Constitutional petitions, therefore, I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well-known principle of consistency as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muzaffar Khan's case" PLD 1959 SC

9. The petitioner is directed to appear before 'Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Law Justice and Human Rights Division in his office at 11-00 a.m. on 14-07-2004, who is directed to hear the petitioner and the agency or his representative and thereafter send the representation of the agency/respondent No.3 along with his recommendations to the Appellate Authority for necessary action. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures to Dr. Danishwar Malik, learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan, who is directed to notify the order to the aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to Dr. Danishwar Malik, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan, for onward transmission to the aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. M.I./A-221/L Petition accepted.