ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this Review Application the applicants have sought review of the judgment dated 27-11-2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,4556 of 1998 whereby the said petition was dismissed. While dismissing the said writ petition on 27-11-2002 the following judgment had been passed by us: "Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners have prayed for the following declarations-- "(i) That the possession and use of all luxury cars, any car beyond 1000 cc. By high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is unconstitutional, un-Islamic and economically beyond the reach of State exchequers, Federal as well as Provincial;
(ii) that the possession and use of huge, sprawling palatial bungalows by high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is un-Constitutional, un-Islamic and against the economic viability of the State of Pakistan;
(iii) that the keeping of `Darbans' with colorful uniforms, the waiting for Bara Sahibs by the peons, opening of door by the peon of Sahib's car, keeping an army of cooks and bearers is unConstitutional, un-Islamic and against the principles demonstrated by the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and examples set by Hazrat Omar;
(iv) that the provisions of discriminatory classes in aero planes, railway trains, coaches, hospitals and all public utility organizations functioning at the expenses of public revenue and under control of the Federal and Provincial Governments are unConstitutional, un-lslamic and violative of the teachings of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah;
(v) that all expenditure on lavish furnishing of the offices and residences of high State functionaries, Constitutional officeholders and by all public functionaries is unConstitutional and all further spending should stay till the foreign debt is retired and every paisa is paid back."
2. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been to the effect that this country I an Islamic Republic and keeping in view the Islamic ethos, values and traditions the State and Governmental institutions as well as the personnel manning them should adopt a simple way of living and extravagance, ostentation and grandiose style of living ought to be shunned. It has been maintained that such a lifestyle does not behave a colliery and a society which is already in debtto the extent of billions of dollars. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for the petitioners has not only referred to but has extensively read out the provisions of Articles 2A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He has also referred to various instances to highlight as to how this debt-ridden society has refused to let to its ostentatious lifestyle. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to and quoted from the judgment in the case of Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1988 SC 416 at pages 489, 490 and 491. He has also read out the relevant portions at pages 28, 90 and 96 of the book titled `Khilafat-o-Malookaiar authored by Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, going through the documents appended with this petition and attending to the material referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners we have felt that the present writ petition is based upon the petitioners' personal perceptions about different concepts and not upon any Constitutional or legal issue. The lifestyle of a society or of the personnel manning the State and Governmental institutions is a subject fit for debate or discussion at a forum other than a Court of law. It goes without saying that legal precepts or judicial verdicts can hardly transform social outlooks or lifestyle perceptions. It is not within the domain of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to direct as to which kind of vehicle should be used by the State dignitaries or public functionaries, what should be the size of the bungalows where such functionaries may be lodged, which kind of staff should be employed for their service, what kind of sitting arrangements or facilities ought to be permissible in various forms of public transport and which kind of furniture should be utilized in the offices and residences of the State dignitaries or public functionaries. Apart from that we are of the view that the Courts of law are not proper fora for canvassing matters which essentially lie in the sphere of public policy or social values and we have, thus, decided not to allow ourselves to be dragged into such issues. This petition is, therefore, dismissed."
2. In support of this review application the learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the sought for review is maintainable under section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. If errors patent on the face of the record can be brought to light as according to him, in the case in hand. With reference to the case of Faqir Muhammad Khan v. Mir Akbar Shah PLD 1973 SC 110 it has been maintained by him that every Court of law is under a duty to apply the correct law and if it can be established that correct law had not been applied by a Court in a given case then a review in that regard is maintainable. It has also been argued that this Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction can issue directions regarding enforcement of the Constitutional obligations and responsibilities and a reference in this respect has been made to the cases of Sharaf Faridi and 3 others v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan and another PLD 1989 Karachi 404 and Government of Sindh through Chief secretary to Government of Sindh, Karachi and others v. Sharaf Faridi and others PLD 1994 SC 105. It has further been argued that if a judgment of a higher Court or of a larger Bench has been ignored then that amounts to an error of law amenable to review jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the cases of Faqir Muhammad Khan v. Mir Akbar Shah PLD 1973 SC 110, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1998 SC 363, M.A. Ghani Soofi and Sons v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1957 Lahore 363 and Sikandar Abdul Karim v.The State 1998 SCMR 908. It has also been maintained by the learned counsel for the applicants that the writ petition filed by the applicants before this Court and the grounds urged in support thereof were not based upon personal perceptions of the applicants but were based upon legal and Constitutional issues. In this context it has been argued that it was not the life-style which was in issue before this Court but it was the unconstitutional practices which had been assailed by the applicants. It has been added that lavish spending from the public exchequer is not only repugnant to the Islamic concepts of simplicity but it is also violative of the Constitutional responsibilities of the State. The learned counsel for the applicants. Has gone on to maintain that judicial verdicts can have the effect of changing perceptions and acceptance of the applicants' writ petition by this Court would have gone a long way in advancing socio-economic justice for all by controlling unconstitutional use of the public exchequer and changing the mindset of all concerned which would have been in furtherance of the Principles of Policy enshrined in the Constitution. The learned counsel for the applicants has read out various portions of the writ petition as well as the amended writ petition filed by the applicants and has referred to the practices in some other parts of the world where high State dignitaries are not extended the - privileges and perks" which are available to their counterparts in this country. It has lastly been maintained by the learned counsel for the applicants that the judgment under review had considered only those prayers which had been made by the applicants in their original writ petition but had failed to take into account the additional prayers made by the applicants through their amended writ petition. This, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, was by itself an error patent on the face of the record calling for review of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the cases of The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209, Haji Muhammad Ibrahim v. The Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar and Ex-Officio Controlling Authority, Town Committee, Jamesabad at Mirpurkhas 1971 SCMR 63 and Mr. Fazlul Quader Chowdhry and others v. Mr. Muhammad Abdul Hague PLD 1963 SC 486.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants at great length on different dates of hearing we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the present review application is an attempt by the applicants to reargue the main case all over again which surely falls outside our review jurisdiction. The parameters of review jurisdiction have very clearly and explicitly been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mst. Bilqis Bibi v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 1008 and Ahmad and 5 others v. The State 2002 SCMR 1611. It is trite that a review application is not to be entertained where an attempt is made through the same to reargue the main case or where reconsideration or reappraisal of the same material is sought. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Mirza Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Karim 1976 SCMR 417, Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan v. Muhammad lqbal Khan Niazi and 2 others 1979 SCMR 604, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Jalal and 3 others v. Nazir Ahmad and 8 others 1980 SCMR 320, Mst. Zainab Khatoon and another v. Mst. (ihulam Fatima 1980 SCMR 331, Abdul Majeed and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1980 SCMR 504. Colony Sarhad.
Textile Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Nowshera 1981 SCMR 867, Abdul Hamid Saqfi v. Service Tribunal of Pakistan and 22 others 1988 SCMR 1318 and Manzoor Hussain v. Mst. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924. It is also a settled principle that for the success of a review application the error pointed out through such an application must have a material bearing upon the fate of the case and but for the said error the result of the case would have been different. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the cases of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Lt.-Col. Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan 1980 SCMR 909, Mst. Hashmat Bibi and others v. Gulzar Muhammad and others 1981 SCMR 316, Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v.
Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Nowshera 1981 SCMR 867 and Hussain v. Allah Bakhsh 1986 SCMR 1155. The law on review jurisdiction is equally settled on the point that points not raised during the hearing of the main C petition cannot be made grounds for review. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Abdul Majeed and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1980 SCMR 504, Brig. H.H. Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawlapur v. The Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1984 SC 67, Hussain v. Allah Bakhsh 1986 SCMR 1155, Muhammad Hanif v. Samar Gul and others 1986 SCMR 1179 and Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 79. Merely because another view of the same matter may be possible has never been considered to be a valid ground for review and this was so decided in the cases of Ekum Razia Muttaqi and others v. State Life Insurance Corporation (Pakistan) etc. 1981 SCMR 762, The Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department and another v. Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America through Lahore Church Council PLD 1988 SC 382 and Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 79. It is also equally settled that mere erroneousness of a judgment is not by itself a valid ground for its review. The case of Begum Razia Muttaqi and others v. State Life Insurance Corporation (Pakistan) etc. 1981 SCMR 762 is a case in point in this regard.
4. Examined at the touchstone of the above mentioned precedents the review application in hand has appeared to us to be outside the scope of review jurisdiction as the applicants have by and large made an attempt through this application to reargue the main case which is an exercise that cannot be permitted by us. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicants which could have some force or potency vis-a-vis review jurisdiction is that some of the prayers made in the applicants' amended writ petition had not been expressly adverted to by us while deciding the main writ petition but upon a deeper scrutiny of the matter even this ground has failed to impress us. In this context it may be advantageous to reproduce all the prayers made by the applicants in their original writ petition as well as in their amended writ petition. In the original writ petition it has been prayed by the applicants as follows: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this learned Court be pleased to declare:
(i) That the possession and use of all luxury cars, any car beyond 1000 cc, by high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is unconstitutional, tin-Islamic and economically beyond the -reach. Of State exchequers,. Federal as well as Provincial;
(ii) that the possession and use of huge, sprawling palatial bungalows by high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is un-constitutional, un-Islamic and against the economic viability of the State of Pakistan;
(iii) that the keeping of `Darbans' with colorful uniforms, the waiting for Bara Sahibs by the peons, opening of door by the peon of Sahib's car, keeping an army of cooks and bearers is unconstitutional, un-Islamic and against the principles demonstrated by the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and examples set by Hazrat Omar;
(iv) that the provision of discriminatory classes in aeroplanes, railway trains, coaches, hospitals, and all public utility organizations functioning at the expense of public revenue and under control of the Federal and Provincial Government are unconstitutional, un-Islamic and violative of the teachings of Holy -Quran and Sunnah;
(v) that all expenditure on lavish furnishings of the offices and residences of high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holdersand by all public functionaries is un-constitutional and all further spending should stay till the foreign debt is retired and every paisa is paid back". As far as the amended writ petition is concerned the main body of the writ petition had by and large remained unchanged and the following prayers had been made by the applicants therein: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this learned Court be pleased to declare:
(i) That the possession and use of all luxury cars, and car beyond 1000 cc. By high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is unconstitutional, un-Islamic and economically beyond the reach of State exchequers, Federal as well as Provincial; (ii). That the possession and use of huge, sprawling palatial bungalows by high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is un-constitutional, un-Islamic and against the economic viability of the State of Pakistan;
(iii) that keeping of 'Darbans' with colourful uniforms, the waiting- for Bara Sahibs by the peons, opening of door by the peon of Sahib's car, keeping an army of cooks and bearers is unconstitutional, un-Islamic and against the principles demonstrated by the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and examples set by Hazrat Omar;
(iv) that the provision of discriminatory classes in aeroplanes, railway trains, coaches, hospitals, and all public ,utility organizations functioning at the expense of public revenue and under control of the Federal and Provincial Government are unconstitutional, un-Islamic and violative of the teachings of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah;
(v) that all expenditure on lavish furnishings of the offices and residences of high State dignitaries, Constitutional office-holders and by all public functionaries is un-constitutional and all further spending should stay till the foreign debt is retired and every paisa is paid back;
(vi) all high State dignitaries elected representatives and public functionaries be immediately restrained from the use of special planes;
(vii) no further expend true whatsoever be incurred on the furnishing of Government offices and residences;
(viii) all public functionaries be restrained from travelling in VIP Class. 1st Class in planes and railways and other privileged transport;
(ix) all Government functionaries be restrained from using orderlies, cooks and other personal servants at the expense of the public revenue;
(x) all public functionaries be restrained from using public vehicles, telephone and other such facilities for their families;
(xi) that the. National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) is applicable to the Armed Forces as well as learned members of the judiciary of Pakistan and, therefore, action need to be initiated against all persons in Pakistan who are or have been in the service of Pakistan wherever they may be if they are accused of corruption or corrupt practice within the meaning of section 9 of the said Ordinance;
(xii) that this learned Court be pleased to direct that the respondents be restrained from receiving the loans from World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank, Paris Club and any other foreign agency and be also restrained from borrowing from any foreign country in order to learn to live within means and to develop economic self-reliance;
(xiii) the petitioners humbly submit that all laws, rules or instructions issued by the Government of Pakistan enabling the public functionaries and high State dignitaries to enjoy such privileges and perks as are violative of the provisions of the Constitution need to be immediately withdrawn." A bare reading of the prayers reproduced above shows that as far as 4he first five prayers made by the applicants before this Court are concerned there was not much of a difference in the original writ petition and the amended writ petition. It were the prayers Nos.(vi) to (xiii) which had been added by the applicants through the amended writ petition but most: of those newly added prayers primarily and essentially pertained to the. Prayers which had already been made through the original writ petition. It were only prayers Nos.(xi), (xii) and (xiii) which were somewhat different from the original prayers and through the same a different.Dimension was sought to be added to the same issue. We have, however,' found that even if those prayers had been expressly considered by us in the judgment under review still the said prayers could not have been granted by us at all.
The law pertaining to the National Accountability Bureau has already been scrutinized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Khan Astandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through' Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2001 SC 607 and, thus, there could hardly be any occasion for us to undertake a fresh exercise in that respect. As. Regards the prayer regarding stoppage of borrowing from the World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank, Paris Club and other foreign agencies or bodies it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the applicants himself before us that issuance of such a direction is outside the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. As regards prayer No,(xiii) suffice it to observe that all the so-called "privileges and perks" enjoyed by different public functionaries and high State dignitaries are controlled by and have been made available to them under various laws, rules or instructions, etc. The applicants could not have, without even specifying such laws, rules or instructions, etc., filed an omnibus petition seeking setting aside of all such laws, rules or instructions, etc. Through an omnibus order to be passed by this Court. We are, therefore, in no manner of doubt that even if the above Mentioned "additional prayers made by the applicants through the melded writ petition had been expressly considered by us separately still the fate of the applicants' writ petition would not have been any different from the one which it met through the judgment under review. It may be of some importance to mention here that the asserted failure on our part to specifically consider the above mentioned additional prayers made by the applicants through their amended writ petition is a ground which has not even been taken by the applicants in the present review application.
5. It may be observed by us here that while relying upon the Principles of Policy enshrined in the Constitution of the. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the learned counsel for the applicants has conveniently overlooked the provisions of clause (2) of Article 30 of the said Constitution which unambiguously provide that The validity of an action or of .a law shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not in accordance with the Principles of Policy, and no action shall lie against the State, or organ or authority of the State or any person on such ground." Thus, through their writ petition as well as through the present review application the applicants have attempted to get something enforced through this Court which this Court is Constitutionally barred from enforcing- through issuance of a writ.
6, It may be added here that the main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants has been that the Islamic concepts of simplicity and equality are not being observed and the so-called "privileges and perks" enjoyed by different functionaries and dignitaries violate and offend against such concepts. It has already been observed by us above that all such so- called "privileges and perks" are based upon some laws, rules or instructions, etc. And for getting a declaration regarding their repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam the applicants have to approach the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions of Article 203-G of the Constitution this Court's jurisdiction has clearly been ousted in that regard.
7. The examples of austerity and simplicity in some other parts of the world cited before us by the learned counsel for The applicants conveniently overlook the fact that in those parts of the world the situation cherished by the applicants had not been brought about through any particular judicial verdict but the same had come about through sustained and prolonged social, economic and political developments. In these circumstances the desire of the applicants to get a judicial verdict from us and then to use the same as a magic wand for achieving the desired objectives and outlooks is something which may qualify to be called as wishful thinking and nothing more. We resolutely refuse to trample or violate the limits and parameters of our jurisdiction under the Constitution merely for making the applicants' wishes come true, The applicants would, therefore, be well advised to approach an appropriate forum having the requisite jurisdiction in this regard and we can only wish them well as their objectives have appeared to us to be noble.
8. For what 'has been discussed above we have found this review application to be devoid of any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.