ANW AARUL HAQ PANNUN, J.---Briefly , the factual matrix of the instant matter, as gleaned from the record, is to the effect that Arshad Mahmood, Rashid and Muhammad Shafique, were accused in case FIR No.513, dated 09.09.2008, in respect of offences under sections 302 and 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Dijkot Faisalabad, after a thorough trial by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad they were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 30.03.2010. Aggrieved of the acquittal judgm ent, the applicant/complainant, namely , Tahira Naseem filed criminal appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. in this Court. The Judicial Branch (hereinafter to be called as "the office") formally received the memorandum of appeal vide Diary No.35884 of 2010 . After scrutiny of the memorandum of appeal, the office, while pointing out certain deficiencies in it but without specifying time within which such deficiencies were to be made good, required "One more file cover and spare copies be filed. 3 spare copies (complete)" from the appellant and "please implead complainant as party".
Due to non-making up of the above pointed out deficiency either by the advocate or by the party , the matter was fixed before a learned Singe Judge nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as an Administrative Judge, who sustained the same vide his order dated 22.05.2015 which is reproduced hereunder:- "Despite repeated calls no one has entered appearance on behalf of the appellant or the learned counsel for the appellant to contest the office objections. The office objections are sustained. File be consigned to record."
The petitioner , after coming out of a deep slumber , proceeded to file an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
[supplementing it with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908] bearing Diary No.46946/19, seeking restoration/revival of appeal, by way of recalling order dated 22.05.2015. The office fixed once again the application questioning its maintainability as an objection case before the Administrative Judge which was also dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 25.1 1.2019, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Despite repeated calls, none has appe ared on behalf of the petitioner . Name of the learned counsel for the petitioner reflects in the cause list but there is no intimation regarding his absence. Dismissed for non-prosecution ."
The applicant has moved yet another application (instant) bearing Diary No.47144/2019 with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that instant application may kindly be accepted and application vide diary No.46946/2019 for restoration of main objection case may kindly be restored in the larger interest of justice."
The office, while raising the objection qua the maintainability of the application , fixed the same before the Administrative Judge. The of fice objection was over-ruled vide order dated 29.1 1.2019, which reads as under:- "Office objection shall be taken up on judicial side, thus, over ruled ."
3. Arguments Heard.
4. Under Article 202 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the High Court has been empowered to make its rules, which, for convenience of reference, is reproduced as follows:- "202. Rules of Procedure . Subject to the Constitution and law, a High Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court or of any court subordinate to it."
The High Court Rules and Orders are primarily a collection of such instructions in summarized form which explain and interprets the laws that are frequently referred to in the courts of law. These rules have been saved and continued through 'saving clauses' of successive constitutions (See Article 244 of Constitution 1956, 225 of Constitution 1962 and 268(1) of the Constitution 1973).
Pursuant to the above provision of the Constitution, Chapter-I titled "Judicial Business" Part-A(a), Volume-V of High Court Rules and Orders, deals with "the Presentation and Reception of Appeals, Revisions, Applications for Review and others/Petitions.
According to Rules 9 and 9-A, Part-A of Chapter-I of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, (Revised Edition, 2010), the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) is authorized to raise objection(s) and return memorandum of any suit, appeal, or petition, or application to make up the deficiency and remove the objection. The relevant rules, for better comprehension, is reproduced hereunder:-
9. (i) The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is autho rized to return memorandum of any suit, appeal, or petition, or application, etc, - a) if it is not maintainable under any law; or b) if it is not properly constituted; or c) if it contains scandalous or objectionable language or material; or d) if it is not drawn up in conformity with the foregoing directions; or e) for amendment, making up of the defic iency or for filing requisite documents, within the time to be specified in the Objection Memorandum Appendix 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
(ii) The order of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) returning the memorandum of any suit, appeal, petition or application may be challenged before the Chief Justice or Judge nominated by the Chief Justice on administrative side whose decision shall be final and shall not be assailed in any other proceeding before the High Court.
9-A. A list of petitions, appeals, etc., ordered to be returned shall be notified on the Notice Board and petitions, appeals, etc., not received back within seven days of the publication of the list shall be placed before a Judge of the High Court for orders on a date to be notified by including such petition in a motion cause list. It is made clear that any delay in placing such petition before the Court or issuing the list shall not furnish any justification for non- receipt of the returned petition in time and non-compliance of the objection taken within time specified by Deputy Registrar (Judl.)"
For convenience, it is clarified that Appendix 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) deals with Civil, Writ and Criminal matters respectively .
5. A minute perusal of the afore reproduced Rule indicates. that upon institution of any suit, appeal, petition etc, as the case may be, the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) while pointing out any of the deficiencies, i.e., being not maintainable, having not been properly constituted or containing scandalous/objectionable language, or having not been drawn up in conformity with the afore-going direction, amendment or for filing requisite documents, for making up the deficiency within the time period specified in the relevant appendix, is authorized to return the memorandum.
Such order is commonly known as 'Office Objection '. Upon making the pointed out deficiencies good within the time specified in the relevant Appendix, the matter is placed, for its determination, on judicial side. Needless to observe here that the above-noted proceedings are not judicial rather ministerial in their nature. Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 9, clearly admits in its interpretation that the party , instead of complying with the order of return of memorandum, may challenge it before Hon'ble Chief Justice or the Judge nominated by him in this regard on Administrative side. Apart from above, (iii) Rule 9-A requires that a list of petitions, appeals, etc., ordered to be returned which have not been received back within seven, days of the publication of the list, notified on the 'Notice Board' shall be placed in a motion cause list before a Judge of the High Court for passing of his orders [Motion case. Motion cases are those where there is no urgency . No bail or stay matter , etc, is involved and no separate form to treat the case as urgent is attached ]. The Rule further states, for the sake of clarity , that any delay , in placing such matter before the court or issuing the list shall not furnish any justification for non-receipt of the returned petition in time. The decision made on the Administrative Side shall be final and shall not be assailed in any other proceedings before the High Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases reported as Rana Naveed Ahmad Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary LG & CD (PLD 2014 Lahore 436) and Employees Management Group, Pak-Saudi Fertilizer Limited through Authorized Representative v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Privatization (Privatization Commission) (2002 YLR 1487 ). The proceedings before the learned Administrative Judge are not judicial rather the same are administrative in their nature, hence the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 are not applicable in these proceedings. In case some memorandum of appeal etc., is resubmitted after its return beyond the period mentioned in the memorandum in the office, same shall not be treated as barred by limitation. The question of belated filing of petition etc., has been considered and decided authoritatively in the case reported as Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2013 SC 392) wherein it has been held that "this rule however does not empower the Deputy Registrar to refuse to entertain (note the expression understood in its legal sense) the petition or in other words to dismiss the petition as having not been validly instituted." Also see Muhammad Boota v . Basharat Ali (2014 CLD 63 ).
6. It may be reiterated that in case of making good the pointed out deficiency by way of compliance of the order of return either by the party or his counsel or due to over-ruling of the office objection, as it known in general parlance, by the Administrative Judge, the office assigns to the matter a number , according to its category and the case is fixed before the Court for the determination of the cause by application of judicial mind while assigning reasons in accordance with law. Normally , while sustaining the office objections, a reasonable time for their removal is granted to enable the party to make up the pointed out deficiency even by the learned Administrative Judge so that without being circumvented by the technicalities the decision of the cause may be made after due application of mind in accordance with law on its merits by a Court. The question arises that if the office objection is ordered to be sustained without considering their nature and due to non-prosecution or without assigning any reason or without affording reasonable time to the party for making up the pointed out deficiency , what remedy shall be available to the aggrieved party against such order . It is needless to observe here that the entire amount of discussion made so far, has led this Court to draw the conclusion that the matter before entering into the judicial realm remains within the administrative orbit and any orders passed under Rule 9(ii) or 9-A is an Administrative order , therefore, I am tempted to refer, being relevant, to the provision of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1857 which is reproduced hereunder:- "24-A. Exercise of power under enactment. (1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority , office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably , fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority , office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the power conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reason for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially ."
7. The situation in the light of what has been noticed above, appropriately demands that a reference of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act may also be made here which provides that the authority competent to pass an order even in absence of an express provision can also revoke, rescind or recall the same until the decisive step is taken but this cannot be done where a right in favour of a third party has been created as a result of original order so passed. This view has consistently been followed by the superior Courts of the country in the cases reported as 2006 YLR 650 and PLD 1991 SC 973 .
8. Applying the above principle deduced from the already referred provisions of law, in the facts and circumstances reproduced hereinabove in their chronology , it is observed that the memorandum of appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner after its scrutiny was returned by the office requiring filing of certain documents but without specifying any time for making the pointed out deficiency of documents good and the matter was straightway placed before the learned Administrative Judge in the list of motion cases.
None was present on behalf of the applicant to contest the office objection, cons equently , it was sustained vide order dated 22.05.2015 the perusal whereof shows that neither it had been noticed that, contrary to the requirement to the Rule 9(i) of the Rules, the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) had failed to specify in the relevant Appendix the time requiring the party to make the deficiency nor the nature of objection had been considered. The petitioner , due to passing of aforesaid order , has been denuded of her statutory right of appeal. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.), while questioning the petitioner's application bearing Diary No.46946/19, placed it before the learned Administrative Judge but on 25.11.2019 it was also dismissed due to non-prosecution, therefore, the question of maintainability of the same could not be decided. If the instant application of the petitioner seeking revival/restoration of her application for restoration of appeal is not entertained, it would amount to denying her the right of access to justice on the basis of technicalities emergin g out of the ministerial proceedings which had culminated into an administrative order . Rule 9 ibid infers that the power of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) to return a memorandum etc., questioning its maintainability is not absolute. This power is only for a very limited purpose which is reflected through the prism of remaining grounds mentioned in the rules. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down to in the judgment reported as Noor Badsha v. United Bank Limited through President and 03 others (2015 PLC (C. S.) 646) wherein it has been held as under:- "As far as the arguments of learned coun sel for the petitioner that office objection regarding maintainability of writ petition has already been over-ruled by this Court, therefore, same cannot be raised again, suffice it to say that learned Single Judge while hearing an objection case performed an administrative function. It is settled law that only after office objection is over-ruled, the case matures for adjudication on the judicial side and formally enters the arena of "Original Civil Jurisdiction" or the "Constitutional Jurisdiction" as the case may be. Accordingly , in the present case, the office objection decided by the learned Single Judge was in administrative jurisdiction and does not preclude this Court to determine the question of maintainability of these petitions, after hearing learned counsel for the parties on judicial side in constitutional jurisdiction."
9. In view of rule 9(i) of the Rules, it is observed that the applicant should have been given an opportunity while specifying the time to make up the pointed out deficiencies by providing the required documents at the first instance and thereafter the learned Administrative Judge while passing the order of sustaining the objection in the interest of justice.
10. For what has been discussed above, I hold the office objection to be unsustain able and the instant application maintainable. Resultantly , the same is allowed and the application bearing Diary No.46946 of 2019 is restored. The office is directed to fix the same for its hearing on administrative side.