The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib-e-Aala, who rejected the same. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a representation before the appellate authority under Article 32 of the President Order No, 1, 1983, which was rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 23.04.2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the representation was dismissed 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 dismissed the representation of the petitioner in the administrative capacity, therefore, providing personal hearing to the petitioner does not arise. He further submits that complaint was rejected by the Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala; which was upheld by the authority under Article 32 of the President Order 1, 1983, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that appellant authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner 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 petition 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 in not in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.'Fazlur Rahman (PLD 1964 S.C. 410). Mere reading of the impugned order -"itself reveals that it was passed by the respondents 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, down by the superior Courts in the following judgments: -- Pakistan Chrome Mines Vs. The Enquiry Officer (PLD 1983 S.C. 1208)
Pakistan and other Vs. Public at Large (PLD 1987 S.C. 304)
University of Dacca Vs. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 S.C. 90)
The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: "Federation of Pak. Vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada" (1999 S.C.M.R. 2189)
"Federation of P. ak. Vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada" (1999 S.C.M.R. 2744)
'Mst. Nusrat Imtiaz Vs. Govt bf 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 settle 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 Constituting 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 S.C. 383). Article 4 of the Constitution also caste 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 S.C. 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 petitioner before the appellate authority shall be deemed to be 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 S.C. 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 07.07.2004, who is directed to hear the petitioner and the agency or his representative and thereafter send the representation of the petitioner alongwith 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.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.