SAVED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J, -- These two Civil Revisions Nos. 596-D/1995 and 597-D/1995, by and large raise common questions of facts and law hence are being disposed of by this common judgment which arise in the following circumstances:
2. On 13.5.1990, petitioner No. 2, the Divisional Canal Officer, Vehari, imposed Tawan for causing breach of outlet in the year, 1981/1984. Six times penalty was ordered to be recovered from the respondents. They filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the Addl. Commissioner (Rev.), Multan who reduced the penalty from six times to two times, as according to him no proper enquiry was conducted. This is vide order dated 19.5.1991.
3. Respondents then filed suit for declaration and injunction that the order of Divisional Canal Officer was illegal and void. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants. After framing the issues the learned Trial Court afforded opportunity to the parties for producing their evidence. He vide judgment dated 26.3.1994, dismissed the suit. The respondents filed appeal thereagainst which was, however, accepted by a learned Addl. District Judge, Vehari on 11.4.1995. The petitioners have challenged this judgment before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of the D.C.O. Was perfectly valid order and the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court, which judgment has been reversed wrongly by the learned Appellate Court. According to him the order of D.C.O: was passed after due compliance of the procedure which order could not be upset by any Court.
5. As against this the learned counsel for respondents refutes the assertion of the petitioners that the order was passed after due enquiry. He refers to the order of Addl. Commissioner who observed that the order was passed without proper enquiry. It is contended by him that when the appellate forum found that the order of D.C.O. Was not legal he should have set aside the same instead of reducing the penalty. It is contended that the respondents were not given notice of hearing before passing of the [ order by the D.C.O. And the entire proceedings were mala fide, as according to him if any such alleged occurrence had taken place, case against the persons involved should have been registered but there is none.
6. The breach of outlet is alleged to have taken place in the year, 1981 and 1984. The case was processed long after and Tawan order made on 13.5.1990. No report was lodged with the police or case registered, if any, such occurrence had taken place. This makes the alleged occurrence itself as doubtful.
7. The learned Addl. Commissioner (Rev.), Multan, while deciding the appeal observed as follows:- "The D.C.O. Has imposed maximum Tawan on the appellant without any justification because no proper enquiry was conducted by the Ziladar in presence of the lambardar/respectables of the chak."
When he recorded the finding that "no proper enquiry was conducted" before passing of the order the same could not be treated as a legal order and ought to have been set aside. This is what the learned Addl. District Judge has done, by accepting the appeal filed by the respondents.
8. I have been shown the files containing the proceedings and the order of the D.C.O. I am astonished to note the order of the D.C.O. Dated 13.5.1990 which is as follows:- "Nobody present! Six times special charges are levied."
The next page is a photo stat proforma stereotype order which has been filled by some ministerial officials of the Department, containing lot many over-writings and cuttings. It clearly shows lack of application of mind to the case by an authority charged with the duty and power to determine the disputes. This cannot be termed as a judicious disposal of a matter by a statutory functionary.
Such disposal of the cases have never been countenanced or approved by the Courts. Reference may be made to Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur and 2 others (PLD 1975 Lahore 44), Dr. Muhammad Ismail v. Deputy Commissioner, Jhang and another (PLD 1976 Lahore 758) Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Pakistan and 3 others (PLD 1976 Karachi 1078), Muhammad Yarob v. Zahir Alam and 10 others (PLD 1976 Quetta 77).
9. It is only a lawful order for which an immunity from challenge before a Court can be claimed. In this case the learned Addl. Commissioner (Rev.) found that no proper enquiry was held before passing the order by the D.C.O. It is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further as discussed above, the order neither shows adequate application of mind nor disposal in a judicious manner.
The same is illegal and the Civil Court did have jurisdiction in the matter to judge its validity. Such an order cannot he treated as a lawful exercise of power. The learned Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Court has jurisdiction in such like cases.
10., The view formed by the learned Addl. District Judge is amply supported by the material on record and the circumstances of the case. I do not find any justification to interfere with the same.
11. In view of the above, this petition has no merit, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.