1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this review application moved by the petitioner on 14-5-2008, he has sought review of the order, dated 21-4-2008, whereby his two applications, C.M.A. 1513/07 and C.M.A. 2778/06, were dismissed.
2. ' The grievance of the petitioner against this order seems to be that it is a slipshod order which does not contain the relevant facts or contentions of the learned counsel, therefore, it should be reviewed on account of such deficiencies. To fortify these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases:-
(1) Maulana Abdul Qudus Bihari through his legal heirs v. Member Land Utilization, Board of Revenue and others (1997 CLC 1332).
(2) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd. And others (2008 PTD 169).
(3) Mst. Nigar Bibi and others v. Salahuddin and others (PLD 1990 SC 76).
(4) Kundal Khan v. Agha Jan (PLD 1990 Peshawar 21).
3. ' Learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Bux Awan in his reply submissions contends that the controversy raised through the review application is much beyond the limited scope of review and the grant of such application will, therefore, open a Pandora box. Once the order has attained finality on merits, its review will not be maintainable.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,5, in his reply submissions made reference to the order, dated 4-9-2002 passed in suit No, 875 of 2002, instituted by the petitioner, to show that the said suit was disposal of by way of compromise in the terms that the petitioner will be collecting the blood of those animals from the slaughter houses for which he is Attorney of owners, while the rest of the blood is to be collected by the Meat Merchants Welfare Association.
5. ' I have perused the case record and seen that in the present petition the petitioner had mainly agitated his grievance against the official respondents for causing harassment to him and eventually this petition, vide order, dated 8-2-2002 was disposed of in the following terms:-- "In the circumstances, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to create any kind of harassm ent, pressure or misuse or excess of power being police officers without any due course of law."
6. ' After passing of above said order, Ist contempt application (C.M.A. 401/02) was moved by the petitioner on 20-2-2002, which was dismissed by a detailed order, dated 2-9-2002. It seems that thereafter some other contempt applications were filed by the petitioner and the last contempt application was dismissed by order, dated 21-4-2008, which was passed in presence of the petitioner.
7. ' In order to examine the grievance of the petitioner agitated in the review application, I have examined the whole material available before me and seen that in the present Constitutional petition no order was passed against the respondent No,5, who is now alleged to be the main contemnor in C.M.A. No, 1512/07. Learned Single Judge, though has not assigned detailed reasons for dismissing the two applications of the petitioner vide order, dated 21-4-2008 but in substance he has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case. In case learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in the Court at the relevant time, the petitioner himself was present in Court to agitate his grievance. Moreover, the petitioner seems to be in the habit of moving applications from time to time directly to this Court as well as other Government functionaries.
8. There can be no cavil to the proposition of law propounded in the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case same have no relevancy.
9. To encapsulate, no case of review of order, dated 21-4-2008 is made out.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this review application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.