' The petitioner was a depot-holder. Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha raided his depot on 31-10-1978 and ordered registration of a case against him under section 186, P. P. C. And his depot was placed under suspension on 20-11-1979 and the quota of the petitioner was attached with the adjoining depot holder. The petitioner assailed the said order by means of revision petition before Secretary, Food, Government of Punjab. The Secretary, Food vide his order dated 26-12-1979 directed that as the inquiry was being held against the petitioner by Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha under orders of the Government, further action against Depot of the petitioner be taken only on receipt of the inquiry report. The order of suspension dated 20-11-1979 whereby the depot of the petitioner had been placed under suspension by District Food Controller was also set aside and the authorisation was restored to the petitioner. Admittedly this inquiry is still pending and has not been completed.
2. The authorisation of the depot of the petitioner was restored to him on 27-12-1979. It appears that thereafter the District Food Controller, Sargodha filed a review application before the Secretary, Food. The Secretary, Food, however, vide order dated 10-2-1980 reviewed his earlier order dated 26- 12-1979 and placed the Depot of the petitioner under suspension. Admittedly the order of review was passed by the Secretary Food, under section 6 subsection (4) of the Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967. This factual position is not controverted by the learned Addl. Advocate-General.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the power of review under section 6 subsection (4) of the Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967 is only confined to correction of errors or supply of omissions which may be apparent on the face of the record and that this power is very limited and cannot be extended to upset the order sought to be reviewed on merits. Section 6.
Subsection (4) of Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967 reads as follows:- "(4) Government, Commissioner, Director, Deputy Director, District Magistrate, or District Food Controller may, after giving notice to the parties concerned review its or his own order to correct errors or supply omissions which are apparent upon the face of the record."
' A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that Government, Commissioner, Director etc. Have been empowered to review its or his own order to correct errors or supply omissions which are apparent on the face of the record. This error apparently is much narrower than the power of appeal or revision which is available to the authorities under section 2(3) of the said Order. The power to review under section 6(4) could only be exercised to correct any error or supply omissions which appear on the face of the record and could be detected without further elaborate inquiry or investigation. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered in Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor (1). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were interpreting a similar provision in section 13(5) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (Ordinance XIX of 1948) dealing with review. This section reads as follows :- "The Rehabilitation Commissioner or Additional, Deputy or Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner may after giving notice to the parties concerned review his own order so far as justice may require, to correct errors or supply omissions which are apparent upon the face of the record."
' The conditions precedent to review were summarized as under:- (1) the power is given to the officers specified;
(1) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 201
(2) notice to the parties concerned is essential;
(3) the review can be only of his own order and not of any other's;
(4) the object is to correct errors, or supply omissions apparent on the face of the record; and
(5) so far as the interests of justice may demand. Their Lordships held: "Secondly, the power to review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of "correcting any error or supplying any omission" which appears on the surface of the record and could be detected - without a further elaborate inquiry or investigation. This might apply to accidental or arithmetical mistakes due to human forgetfulness, not involving a mental process of reasoning or the appreciation of any law or the facts already proved or admitted. Any other view would eliminate the real distinction between the exercise of powers on appeal where the entire subject-matter is open to re-assessm ent and re-decision by the higher authority, and on review, where the matter has already been finally decided and cannot be re-opened but for the very narrow object of correcting some errors which had occurred in spite of intention to the contrary. Further, the removal of any error will not confer power of "review"; it must be of a character that without correcting it the rights to which the parties may be entitled, cannot be adjusted:
4. The impugned order which has been passed in the case goes beyond correcting any error supplying omissions. In fact by the said order, the earlier order whereby the depot of the petitioner was ordered to remain intact has been varied and set aside. Petitioner's depot has not only been placed under suspension but it has been further ordered that no quota of Foodstuffs 4 should be given to him until the receipt of the inquiry report. In my view the impugned order went beyond the power given under section 6(4) of the Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967. It is therefore declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.
5. This writ petition is accepted. There will be no order as to costs.