1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- Granted.
2. Through this application the petitioner has sought review/recall of our order, dated 7-11-2003, directing the respondent No,2 to demolish the illegal structure on the third floor of the building. The ground urged in support of the review application is that the order, dated 7-11-2003 was passed without taking into consideration an earlier order, dated 21-8-2003 by this Court, whereupon the petitioner had made payment of Rs,773,960 to the respondent No,2 by way of the requisite fee and the latter had subsequently regularized the construction.
2. ' We have carefully gone through the order, dated 21-8-2003 relied upon by the learned counsel. On that date the Court was informed by learned counsel for the respondent No,2 that the respondent No,8 had applied for regularizing third floor of the building and such plan was under scrutiny of the concerned authorities. Upon this the Court recorded its order as follows:-- ' "In view of the above we grant finally 30 days' time to respondent's functionaries to finalize regularization of plan, said to have been submitted before him by respondent No,8 and submit report. This order shall not be treated as direction or recommendation by the Court for approving the plan. The department to decide the same strictly in accordance with law and rules provided therefore." (underlining ours).
3. It is evident from the above that no imperative directive was given to respondent to regularize the third floor and the order explicitly states that the matter was to be considered in accordance with law. Even otherwise when a particular power is conferred upon a statutory functionary it has to act only in accordance with law. Once the Court recorded its finding to the effect that the law does not empower the respondent No,2 to regularize incomplete structure through its judgment in C.P. No,D- 1856 of 2002 on 14-10-2003, we do not see how a different view of the law could be taken. Mr. Abdul Latif Shakoor argued that the aforesaid judgment announced on 14-10-2003 could not affect regularization approved earlier. Nevertheless we fail to gee how a different interpretation as to the powers of the respondent under section 5 of Ordinance VIII of 2002 can be given before and after the particular date. The application is therefore, dismissed. It is however, clarified that the petitioner will be entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by him with the respondent No,2 for regularization of the third floor of the building.
4. ' At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent No,8 however, the effect of the order, dated 7-11-2003 is suspended for a period of one month to enable the respondent to approach the Honourable Supreme Court.