P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

". . against orders passed by me or by my delegatees under subsection (2) of section 20 of the said Act." Learned counsel for the respondent, however, made a reference to Notification No. 10266‑Admn‑Reh/61, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 20th of December 1961. It reads :‑-- . "In supersession of all previous notifications issued from time to time, I, Ahsan‑ud‑Din, CSP, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, by virtue of powers vested in me by section 31(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) do hereby delegate my powers under section 20 (2) of the said Act to the following Settlement Commissioner for the areas noted against their names :‑-- S.No. Name of Settlement Commissioner Jurisdiction H'Qrs.

1. Raja Muhammad Zia‑ ullah Khan, P. C. S. Multan, Peshawar and D. I. Khan Divisions. Lahore According to the above jurisdiction and distribution of work all officers should please ensure that the cases relating to Courts other than their own which are pending on their file in accordance with previous distribution of work, are immediately transferred to the respective Courts after preparing detailed lists and under intimation to the Head quarters Office. The above officers will also hear fresh review petitions and also those petitions pending in the Courts of their predecessor." Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if it is admitted that on the basis of the above‑mentioned notification, the powers of review were conferred on Raja Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, yet it was to take effect from the 1st of January 1962, and in support of this contention, he referred to Notification No. 126 Admn‑Reh/62 issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commission.‑r, on the 9th of January 1962, which is as under :‑

"In partial modification of Settlement Organization Notifica tion No. 10266‑Reh/61, dated the 20th November 1961, relating to the delegation of my powers under section' 20 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as amended up to date, I, Ahsan‑ud‑Din, CSP, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, do hereby order that the said notification shall come into force with effect from the 1st of January 1962." Concluding his arguments that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had not delegated the powers of review, learned counsel for the petitioner again referred to Notification No. 1313‑Admn‑Reh/62, dated the 26th of April 1962, reproduced earlier in this judgment, and contended that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had delegated the powers of review to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner, mentioned therein, only against the orders passed by him before the 13th of January 1962, because the words in this notification are:

" . . . review cases as had been filed before 13‑1‑1962 against orders passed by me under section 20 (2) of the said Act", and thus the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had not delegated the powers to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioners to review those orders, which were passed by them in exercise of the powers delegated by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (II of 1962), which was published and notified on the 13th of January 1962, section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) was amended and subsections (1), (1‑A) and (2) of section 21 of the said Act were omitted. It, therefore, follows that the provisions pertaining to the review had been abrogated by the above‑mentioned Ordinance and thus the powers of review could be exercised up to the 12th of January 1962.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent made a reference to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordi nance (II of 1962) published in the Gazette of Pakistan Extra ordinary on the 17th of March 1962. Section 7 of this Ordinance, which is a saving clause, reads as follows :‑

"For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that omission by this Ordinance of subsections (2) and (4) of section 20 and subsection (1), (1‑A) and (2) of section 21 of the said Act shall not affect, any case or proceeding the record of which was called for under subsections (2) of section 20 of the said Act, or any review proceeding under subsection (1) of section 21 thereof, which was pending before the commencement of this Ordinance. Provided that no revision under any of the provisions omitted by this Ordinance shall lie against such case or proceeding." Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Central) can also be invoked, which is as under :‑ "Where this Act, any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or thereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not‑ (a)

. (b) affect the previous operation or anything duly done or suffered thereunder ; or (c)

(d)

(e)

12. A perusal of section 7 of Ordinance (XIII of 1962) read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Central) would show that all the review applications pending before the promulgation of Ordinance (II of 1962) should continue notwithstanding the fact, that the powers of review had been deleted by this Ordinance.

13. Replying to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that review application was not properly presented, as it was filed in the Court of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner instead of filing it in the Court of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, learned counsel for the respondent called attention to the order of the Settlement Department published in the press‑note, dated the 4th of April 1962, which is as under :‑ "It has been decided that all revision petitions under section 20, subsection (2) to be presented to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, will be received by the Additional Settlement Commissioner of the area. After issuing proper receipt therefore, the petition so received should be passed on to the Settlement Commissioner concerned who had been invested with the powers of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for the disposal of such petitions." Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on the basis of the above‑mentioned order, the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioners of the areas were authorized to receive revision petitions under section 20, subsection (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) and so, on this analogy, the review application addressed to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner filed in the Court of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was properly instituted.

14. It is not within the scope of the writ jurisdiction that we should enter into the question as to whether the review application was in time or not. The powers of review conferred upon the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner are two‑fold, firstly, when he is moved on an application for which a period of 15 days is fixed, and secondly, he has got suo Motu powers. If, therefore, this petition is accepted and the prohibition, as prayed for, is issued, we would be depriving the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner of his suo Motu powers. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar in this writ petition that we should not enter into the question, namely, whether the review application pending in the Court of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner is within time or not.

15. A reference to this Court order dated the 6th of March 1962, admitting this writ petition for regular hearing would show that the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon clause 6 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (II of 1962), whereby section 21(1), (1‑A), (2) is no longer available, but; as discussed above, the powers of review with respect to cases pending before the promulgation of this Ordinance, was saved by section 7 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (XIII of 1962) and also by section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Central). Furthermore, Raja Muhammad Ziaullah Khan (respondent No. 2) is no longer in service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed against him.

16. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the prayer for a writ of prohibition is premature and we dismiss the writ petition. Since the writ petition has failed on a technical ground, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.