' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C.J.--- Petitioner, proprietor of business firm named "Khalil Sons" approached the C.D.A. On 29-4-1975 for allotment of land, for the purpose of magazine storage, in response whereof C.D.A. Allotted him a piece of land, measuring 10,000 sq. Yards, for a period of 99 years lease, in Sector H-11, Islamabad. The petitioner did his business for about 9-10 years on the allotted premises, however, Administrator Islamabad vide letter dated 22-10-1988 informed the petitioner, that Sector H-11, Islamabad has become thickly populated, hence, cannot be used for magazine storage, whereupon petitioner requested the C.D.A. For utilization of said land for some other business purpose. On the said request of the petitioner, he was asked by the C.D.A. To pay conversion charges at the rate of Rs.38 per Square Yard. Petitioner requested C.D.A. To charge the conversion charges at the rate of Rs.19 per Square Yard, which was turned down, resultantly he approached the Federal Ombudsma n, who decided the matter in his favour vide order dated 12-11- 1997. A number of letters were issued by the Office of Federal Ombudsman to the C.D.A. But C.D.A.
Did not respond the same with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Thereafter, another order was issued on 9-5-2000 by the Federal Ombudsman, whereby respondent- C.D.A. Was directed to complete the proceedings not later than 1st July, 2000. On 8-6-2000, C.D.A. Filed appeal before the President of Pakistan, against the decision of Federal Ombudsman. The President of Pakistan vide order dated 31-1-2001 admitted the appeal and set aside the decision rendered by Federal Ombudsman.
2. Petitioner has alleged that impugned order dated 31-1-2001 has been passed in mechanical manner. The order dated 12-11-1997, passed by Federal Ombudsman has attained finality and cannot be set aside. Petitioner has prayed that order dated 31-1-2001, passed by the President of Pakistan be set aside, with the direction of payment of compensation to him by the C.D.A.
3. Respondent- C.D.A. In his parawise comments has admitted the allotment of land measuring 10,000 Square Yards. However, it has been alleged that with the passage of time, the area became inhabited and the local administration refused to extend the license beyond 24-4-1991. Petitioner filed a civil suit seeking direction to the authority to allow him to establish "publishing house" on the allotted site but later on same was withdrawn. Petitioner then lodged a complaint with the Wafaqi Mohtasib, who on 12th November, 1997 directed C.D.A. To allow the petitioner to use the premises for some other institutional use. Petitioner selected the educational use of the site, whereupon he was asked to pay Rs.3,000 per Sq. Yard as conversion charges. Petitioner again approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib. This time conversion charges were fixed at Rs.38 per sq. Yard. The decision was impugned before the President of Pakistan under Article 32, P.O.No.1 of 1983, on the ground that the rate of Rs.38 per sq. Yard, relied upon by the petitioner was charged from a government department for change of use from educational institution to hospital. The representation was accepted by the President.
4. Learned counsel contends that order of the President of Pakistan is contrary to the decision recorded by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Muhammad Tariq Prizada and others, 1999 SCM R 2189 and that the conversion charges fixed by Wafaqi Mohtasib through a well considered, reasoned judgment could not have been set-at-naught. On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.D.A. Lay stress that conversion charges were correctly determined by the C.D.A. And finding of Honourable Wafaqi Mohtasib against the determination of C.D.A. Was lacking any criteria.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. Conversion of use has been allowed. The dispute relates to conversion charges. C.D.A. Worked out the conversion charges at Rs.3000 per sq. Yard, basing on an auction conducted in year, 1998, where NDC's bid at the rate of Rs.4,500 per sq. Yard was accepted for a plot in the same sector.
7. The petitioner claims levy of conversion charges at the rate of Rs.38 per sq. Yard, allowed by the respondent authority to a government department for conversion of use from educational institution to hospital.
' The Wafaqi Mohtasib, in its decision recorded on 9-5-2000 determined that conversion charges be taken at the rate of Rs.38 per sq. Yard as levied to a Government department for a plot in the same sector.
8. The target date for conversion charges is 12-11-1997, when the Ombudsman in its first finding allowed change of use. No criteria was available with the C.D.A. On the above target date, calling for payment of conversion charges at a particular rate. No rule or regulation is available on the subject till the framing of Islamabad Land Disposal Regulation, 2005. The respondent authority being a public functionary, cannot fix the rate at its own discretion in an arbitrary manner. Granting conversion charges at the rate of Rs.38 per Sq. Yard to a government department and refusing the same to the petitioner is a clear discrimination to the citizen qua the government department.
Citizen and government are to be treated at par. No discrimination is permissible in law.
Conclusion of the Wafaqi Mohtasib performing duty in a quasi judicial manner cannot be set at naught in representation through a mechanical order, deficient of reasons in its support. In Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others' case (supra), Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed:-- "Thus visualized, the jurisdiction vests in President under Article-32 partakes of appellate jurisdiction. Application of judicial mind is a must for reaching a fair and just conclusion on the lis brought before the President/Wafaqi Mohtasib. Such an approach is in consonance with the scheme of the order, in that, the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) has been created in order to diagnose, investigate, redress and rectify any injustice done to a person through maladministration. The view taken by this Court in the judgment under review that the Ombudsman performs quasi-judicial functions, also finds support from the earlier judgment of this Court in Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1989 SC 109, wherein while examining the scope, powers and functions of the Ombudsman, it was observed:-- "Amongst others he can file a complaint and grievance application before the Federal Ombudsman, who can provide effective redress, in a case like the present one. That forum has several attributes of a Court in many aspects of its powers. It can also move in a matter promptly whenever so needed. At the same time it does not suffer from some of the handicaps, due to technicalities of procedural nature, which operate as impediments or thwart such-like actions by the Courts. For example the limitation of non-availability of an alternate remedy in this case for the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, is not applicable to the said forum. Besides the same being quasi-judicial it is also headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court; with similar powers to punish for contempt. In this context, therefore, it can be safely concluded, that it can provide the alternate effective and adequate remedy to the petitioner also"
' Under the scheme of the order, the President exercises the same nature of functions as are performed by the Ombudsman. Thus, visualized, the President while performing his functions under Article 32 of the order acts in quasi-judicial and not in administrative capacity, which is totally distinguishable from administrative actions."
9. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of President is set aside and C.D.A. Is directed to take conversion charges at the rate of Rs.38 per Sq. Yard and allow the petitioner to use the plot for educational purpose.