' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.--Petitioner a private insurance company engaged in the business of general insurance in Pakistan since 1983 and listed with respondent Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, for the purposes of insuring the properties of the borrowers of the said Bank is aggrieved by the findings/recommendations, dated 4-3-1992, recorded by respondent Wafaqi Mohtasib directing the petitioner company to pay a claim of Rs,1,00,000 to respondent No,4 and simultaneously deciding that A.D.B.P. Should stop charging interest on the loan amounting to Rs,1 lac advanced to respondent No,4 with effect from the date of accident. Learned Wafaqi Mohtasib further directed that in case of non-compliance by the petitioner with his directions, such company should be delisted A.D.B.P.
2. From the averments in the petition, it seems that respondent No,4 obtained a loan of Rs,1 lac from A.D.B.P. For purchase of a tractor which was insured with the petitioner company on the terms and conditions contained in the instrument of insurance policy. In 1990 a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No,3 in regard to premium charged by the petitioner company. The respondent No,3 had threatened to delist the petitioner company on the allegation that the premium rate was higher and as such the petitioner company had over charged. The petitioner was, therefore, obliged to challenge the act of respondent No,3 through Writ Petition No,597 of 1990 before the Lahore High Court in which ad interim relief was granted to the petitioner restraining the respondent No,3 from delisting the petitioner company. During the pendency of the said petition, parties arrived at a compromise that the dispute may be referred to Arbitrators one to be appointed by each of them and an Umpire to be appointed by the two Arbitrators. While the arbitration proceedings were under progress, respondent No,4 made a complaint to respondent No,1 complaining that the petitioner company had declined to pay his claim for the loss occasioned to the tractor. The company pleaded that while his tractor was at Hyderabad, it was set on fire by rioters and it was a total loss. Eventually the petitioner company refused to pay the claim for the reasons that Official Surveyor reported that the tractor was not in the field when it was set on fire, thus, the claim was not covered by the terms of policy. On receipt of notice of the complaint from the respondent No,2, an officer working in Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat in the Regional Office at Karachi, petitioner prayed for a copy of the complaint and pleaded absence of jurisdiction but neither he was supplied with a copy of the complaint nor heard on the points raised by him culminating in the impugned findings forwarded to the petitioner on or about 27-4-1992, hence this petition.
3. With the admission of the petition to regular hearing by an interim order, operation of the impugned indings/recommendations was suspended. Although Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, the D.A.- G. Filed his memo. Of appearance on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 on or about, 9-6-1992 and respondent No,3 represented through a counsel; neither parawise comments nor any counter- affidavit was filed by the parties. Notwithstanding an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29-4-1993 desiring the parties that further details may be placed on the record of the petition, no attention was paid by any of the respondents.
4. At the hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of respondent No,4 was rejected by the respondents as far back as 31st October, 1988; a complaint was lodged by respondent No,4 with the respondent No,1 for the first time on 26-11-1991; that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and that in any event, jurisdiction of the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib did not extend to the affairs of a private limited company which is neither a Division of the Federal Government nor a Corporation or Organization created and established by the Federal Government. Indeed Mohtasibs jurisdiction extends to a Ministry, Division, Department, Commission or Office of the Federal Government or Statutory Corporation or other institutions established or controlled by the Federal Government. It does not extend to the maladministration committed by a private citizen or for that reason a limited company. Indeed the jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Mohtasib are clearly defined in Article 9 of Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983. Undisputedly, petitioner is neither an institution nor a statutory corporation established or controlled by the Federal Government, therefore, we are, clearly of the view that the learned Mohtasib acted without jurisdiction, in excess of authority vested in him under the special and extraordinary statute promulgated by the President and Chief Martial Law Administrator in pursuance of the proclamation of the Fifth day of July, 1977 and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf. Indeed the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was established in order to diagnose, investigate, redress and rectify and injustice done to a person through maladministration by State functionaries which by any stretch of reasoning, cannot be extended to a private citizen or juristic person not covered by the expression "agency" as defined in Article 2(1) of President's Order 1 of 1983.
5. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Naeem Mehmood Alvi v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (1986 CLC 1433) Abdul Hameed Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1991 FSC 127), National Bank of Pakistan v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (PLD 1992 Kar. 339) and Prince Glass Works Limited v. National Beverages Limited (PLD 1987 Kar. 49).
6. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, findings/recommendations of the respondent No,1 contained in the impugned order to the extent of rights and interests of the petitioner are declared to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The petition is accordingly allowed but with no order as to costs. Aforesaid are the reasons for the short order announced at the conclusion of the hearing.