Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No,2 before Wafaqi Mohtasib Aala, who accepted the same vide order dated 3-6-2002.
Respondent No,2 being aggrieved filed representation under Article 32 of the President Order 1 of 1983 before the competent authority, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 16-8-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the appeal was accepted by the appellate authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner or even issuance of notice to the petitioner.
The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the appellate authority had decided the representation after applying its independent mind as is evident from order dated 16-8-2003. He further submits that the petitioner utilized the energy, therefore, the petitioner was bound to pay outstanding of the respondent No,2, therefore, the impugned order is valid in the eye of law.
He further submits that even otherwise, it is a discretion of appellate authority either to accept or to reject the representation of the parties. He further submits that even if the impugned order is void, even then this Court should not exercise its discretion in view of the circumstances of the case. He further submits the appellate authority had decided the representation in administrative capacity, therefore, question of providing hearing to the petitioner, does not arise.
He further submits that even otherwise, it is a discretion of appellate authority either to accept or to reject the representation of the parties. He further submits that even if the impugned order is void, even then this Court should not exercise its discretion in view of the circumstances of the case. He further submits the appellate authority had decided the representation in administrative capacity, therefore, question of providing hearing to the petitioner, does not arise.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The question of law has finally been decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada" 1999 SCM R 2189.
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 otherwise, it is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice it is prohibited by wording of statute itself, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Commissioner of Income-tax v. Fazal- ur-Rehman" PLD 1964 SC 410. The Honourable Supreme Court insisted that the cases be decided after providing proper hearing to all the concerned in view of, principle of natural justice. Even Almighty Allah had given notice to "SATAN" before taking action against him as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Pakistan and others v. Public at large" PLD 1987 SC 304 at page 356 and in "Malik Iftikhar Ahmad v. Ali Asghar and others" PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 47 at page 53, therefore, principle of natural justice is in accordance with injunction of Islam. After addition of Article 2A in the Constitution, it is the duty and obligation of the competent authority to decide the representation of the agencies after providing proper hearing to all the concerned, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Zakir Ahmad v. University of Dacca" PLD 1965 SC 90; "Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. Inquiry Officer" 1983 SCM R 1208; "Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304; "Mst. Badshah Begum v. The Additional Commissioner" 2003 SCM R 629; "Malik Iftikhar Ahmad v. Ali Asghar and another" PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 47.
The impugned judgment is hit by principle of natural justice, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is pertinent to mention here that I have already 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 principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M. Muzaffar Khan v. M. Yousaf Khan" PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 9.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer of respondent No.1 in his office at 11- 00 a.m. on 27-10-2003, who is directed to provide proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and respondent No.2 and thereafter send his recommendation to the competent authority for its decision upon the representation filed by respondent No.2 before the appellate authority under Article 32 of the President Order 1 of 1983.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, D.A.-G. for Pakistan, who is directed to send the same to the aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Case remanded. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.