' SHUJAT ALI KHAN, J.---By virtue of this application the applicant has sought review of order dated 18-3-2013 passed in Writ Petition No 6506 of 2013.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant application, are that the respondent filed Writ Petition (No,6506 of 2013) against the applicant and others before this Court with the averments that neither State Life Insurance Corporation (applicant) is denying ownership rights of the respondent towards Insurance Policy Nos.503801860, 503832607 and 501114411 nor is deciding representation of the respondent. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 18-3-2013 when the same was disposed of in the following terms:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter at some length, feels satisfied if a direction is given to Zonal Head/General Attorney, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Lahore (respondent No,2) to look into grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
(2) Petitioner is directed to move application to respondent No,2 who shall consider the same in accordance with law, relevant rules and policies applicable thereto after associating the petitioner and pass a speaking to section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is clarified that the order of this court would not be construed as to the authenticity or merits of the case and this Court feels confident that the matter would be decided within four weeks from the filing of application by the petitioner. Disposed of"
' Aggrieved by the afore-quoted order of this Court, the applicant has preferred instant review application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent had no locus standi to file titled Writ Petition (No,6506 of 2013) and she has obtained the impugned order by suppressing material facts; that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the applicant; that there is no record regarding the Policy numbers mentioned by the respondent in the aforesaid writ petition; that the respondent never submitted any claim in that regard; that the respondent failed to produce anything regarding the Policy numbers in question; that the dispute, subject matter of aforesaid writ petition, was agitated after 13 years of death of husband of the respondent and the same was returned by the Insurance Tribunal by following the judgment delivered by the learned Full Bench of this Court reported as Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477); that no application of the respondent was pending regarding which the direction was sought vide impugned order; that only a claim examiner can examine the insurance claim and that the respondent had no contractual relation with the applicant.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submits that State Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as the Corporation) being statutory body is bound to redress grievance of its policy holders or in the event of their death the claims of their legal heirs be processed as early as possible; that the respondent has provided policy numbers and now it is upto the Corporation to decide as to whether the said policies were in the name of husband of the respondent or not; that due to introduction of Information Technology in the government institutions, the Corporation can verify the policy from any corner of the country; that as husband of the respondent died in the year 1998, therefore, it is not possible for her to locate the exact status of the policies and that the Corporation being a federal entity, it is choice of the respondent to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of any High Court of the country and that the respondent being widow is wandering here and there just to see the fate of policies issued in the name of her husband; that attitude of the authorities of the Corporation is totally lethargic and they are not ready to entertain claim of the respondent and that since the respondent assailed order of the Insurance Tribunal before this Court, therefore, there was no question of limitation and that authorities of the Corporation, being public functionaries, this Court has ample power to direct them to decide any matter pending before them.
5. While exercising his right of rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as no claim was lodged by the respondent, therefore, it was not possible for the functionaries of the Corporation to know exact whereabouts of the policies in question; that the respondent herself posed to be resident of Karachi while filing petition before the Insurance Tribunal whereas she has introduced new address of Lahore just to show that jurisdiction of this Court is attracted in the matter in hand; that there is possibility that husband of the respondent might have purchased the policies in question from Karachi, therefore, offices of the Corporation there would be in a better position to redress her grievance and that there is no denying the fact that this ' Court is fully empowered to direct a public functionary to decide the matter pending before him but since there was nothing pending before any authority of the Corporation, prior to filing of this application, the respondent had got the impugned direction from this Court by suppressing material facts.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this application as well as those annexed with the file of Writ Petition No,6506 of 2013.
7. A perusal of the file shows that the respondent approached the Insurance Tribunal for redressal of her grievance but her petition was returned in view of verdict pronounced by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) for its presentation before appropriate forum. The respondent instead of approaching concerned court opted to file writ petition before this Court with a totally changed address inasmuch as while filing her application before the Insurance Tribunal she posed herself to be resident of KarAchi whereas while filing petition before this Court she has shown herself to be resident of new Garden Town, Lahore, which fact alone is sufficient to establish that the writ petition was filed by the respondent by concealing material facts.
8. The plea advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that since no claim has been lodged by the respondent, authorities of the Corporation are not in a position to adjudge status of the policies in question, sounds to reason. Prima facie, it seems that the respondent, by way of a decision on her application, wants to create new cause of action just to frustrate the Corporation before different forums which being against the settled law cannot be approved of.
9. Even otherwise, right of hearing is a universally acknowledged principle and nobody can be deprived of at any costs. Since the order impugned in this review application was passed without hearing the applicant the same deserves to be recalled.
10. For what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the applicant has succeeded to prove that the impugned order was obtained by the respondent while suppressing material facts.
Consequently, instant Review Application is accepted and the impugned order dated 18-3-2013 is recalled and Office is directed to fix Writ Petition No,6506 of 2013 in the last week of June 2013 under notice to the parties as well as their learned counsel with a specific direction to the applicant to file report and parawise comments. No order as to costs.
Review allowed.