' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. ---The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order of the respondent dated 11-11-2003 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondent without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the impugned order is valid as the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Ombudsman was not maintainable in view of section 9(2)(b) of the Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. He further submits that no useful purpose will arise in case the Constitutional petition is accepted. He further submits that substantial justice has been done between the parties, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order itself reveals That the same was passed by respondent No,1 without providing proper hearing to the petitioner and without issuance of notices to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCM R 2189; ' Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCM R 2744; ' Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304; ' Pakistan Chrone Mines Ltd. v. Inquiry Officer 1983 SCM R 1208.
' 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. It is also settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute until and unless the same is prohibited by wording of the statute itself as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazalur Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410. I have taken the aforesaid view in various Constitutional, petitions, therefore, I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well known principle of consistency as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 11-11-2003 passed by respondent No,1 is not in accordance with dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, D the same is set aside meaning thereby the appeal-representation filed by the petitioner before respondent No,1 shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. The petitioner is directed to appear before Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Islamabad, in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 27-1-2004, who is directed to provide proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order and thereafter send the same along with his recommendations to the competent authority for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide copy of this order to Mr. Sher. Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan, who is directed to send the same to the respondent No,2, (Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer) for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.