IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---By this order we intend to dispose of contempt of Court proceedings initiated against Kh. Zahir Ahmed, former Commissioner, Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad.
2. Precisely stating facts necessary for disposal of instant proceedings are that on 17th October, 1983, Khawaja Zahir Ahmad in capacity of Commissioner, C.D.A. Decided/disposed of a revision petition under section 36 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"). In his judgment, he differed with the interpretation placed by High Court and this Court on sections 2(k), 30 and 31 of Ordinance in the judgments reported in PLD 1977 Lahore 1200 and PLD 1976 SC 752 by using intemperate language. Relevant para. From the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-- ... ..It is well-settled rule of jurisprudence and interpretation that the ,superior Courts interpret the law as it exits on the statute book by clarifying the intention of the Legislature. These authoritative pronouncements, however, are not interpreted to give such meaning, which would tend to repeal a clear provision of law. It is, therefore, for this reason that the varying meaning assigned and construction given to the abovementioned rulings of the superior Courts are not shared by this Court. Amongst other things this misinterpretation constitutes mistake patent on the face of the record. There is nothing in these orders, which should justify or lend objectivity to the decision to grant compensation, which has no bearing, or relevance with the recorded data on market value as defined in section 2(k) read with sections 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. Why were the transactions recorded during 1954-58 ignored is not very clear? Some vague references have been given about the rates awarded in 1961-63 (which became the basis for award given-on 6-8-1979) being irrelevant, but these do not stand the judicial scrutiny. ....... ......."
3. The above order came under examination before this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 475 to 478 of 1998. While dictating the judgment' in these appeals, it was noticed that Presiding Officer Kh. Zahir Ahmed though differed with the decisions reported in the judgments of Lahore High Court and this Court but had used intemperate language in not accepting interpretation of various provisions of the Ordinance. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued to him to explain as to why proceedings of contempt of Court may not be initiated against him.
4. In response to show-cause notice, Khawaja Zahir Ahmad appeared and filed a written statement tendering unqualified apology. Relevant para. From the written statement is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The answering respondent may state at the very outset that he holds this Honourable Court and all other Courts in the highest esteem and cannot even imagine of doing of any act or saying anything which may amount to contempt of this Honourable Court. The answering respondent submits his unqualified apology in case any remark made by him as Judicial Officer even remotely is perceived as amounting to contempt of Court. The answering respondent again submits that he can never conceive of saying anything or doing anything which may affect the dignity and decorum of this Honourable Court."
5. Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of Khawaja Zahir Ahmad and stated that about 18 years back he was a Junior Officer when he passed order in which the reference of the judgments of the learned High Court and Supreme Court was made and as not being a Judicial Officer he failed to follow ratio in both the cases otherwise he had no intention of whatsoever nature to undermine the authority of both the superior Courts. But as now he has thrown himself at the mercy of this Court, therefore, unqualified apology tendered by him may be accepted keeping in view that now he is a Senior Officer with 30 years' service to his credit.
6. Khawaja Zaheer Ahmad in capacity of Commissioner C.D.A. Was exercising quasi-judicial powers as an appeal under section 36 of the Ordinance was enlisted before him for decision. He in this capacity had an occasion to go through the judgments of High Court and this Court referred to hereinabove to interpret sections 2(k), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. Therefore, it was obligatory upon him to follow reported judgments in letter and spirit in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution") any decision of the Supreme Court shall have binding effect to the extent that it decides question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law. If the Courts functioning in Pakistan are bound to follow such judgment then on the same analogy any functionary discharging quasi-judicial or administrative functions also had no lawful authority to deviate from the judgments of the apex Court, which had decided a question of law or had enunciated the principle of law. It is to be clarified here that although the administrative functionaries do not enjoy judicial powers but when they are required to pronounce a judicial decision in judicial proceedings instituted before them, they are bound by the judgments of the superior Courts as if they are functioning as a judicial forum having powers of Court to the extent of the decisions of the case required to be made by them judiciously. In forming this view we are fortified with the judgments reported in AIR 1925 Privy Council 272 (Kuar) Mata Prasad and another v. (Kuar) Nageshar Sahai and others) wherein it has been held "that it is not open to the Courts in India to question any principle enunciated by the Privy Council although they have a right of examining the facts of any case before them to see whether and how far the principle on which stress is laid applies to the facts of the particular case. Nor is it open to them whether on account of 'judicial dignity' or otherwise to question its decision on any particular issue of fact. Any application for review of judgment on grounds permissible by law only lies to the Judicial Committee". In the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Khan v. Sanaullah and another PLD 1971 SC 324 it was held "the Constitutional duty that any decision of the Supreme Court shall to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan and that all Judicial Authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court". In the case of Khalid Rashid and another v. The State PLD 1972 SC 729 it has been held "that when the Supreme Court declares law the High Court is bound to follow the same".
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Kh. Zahir Ahmad had no lawful authority to differ with the law discussed in reported judgments and by not following the same he has made himself liable for action because while disagreeing with the principles laid down therein he used intemperate language.
7. Learned counsel persistently stated that respondent had placed himself at the mercy of the Court and as he is a Senior Officer of Government of Pakistan, having 30 years' service at his credit and is presently representing Government of Pakistan in Asian Development Bank, therefore, unqualified apology tendered by him may graciously be accepted. We have no doubt in our mind that Khawaja Zaheer Ahmad by using intemperate language in respect of the judgments of the superior Courts has made himself liable for contempt of Court, but perusal of order which was passed by him way back in 1983 indicates that he had not differed with the judgments quoted before him with mala fide intention but on account of non-understanding of judicial principles pertaining to apply the judgments of the superior Courts, therefore, by extending him the benefit of such extenuating circumstances we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction contempt of Court as provided under Article 204 of the Constitution. Thus, for the forgoing reasons show-cause notice, dated 20th November, 2001 issued to Khawaja Zaheer Ahmad is discharged with a warning to him that in future he should remain careful while interpreting judgments passed by the superior Courts. Otherwise if he repeated such omission, he would be dealt with strictly without showing any leniency to him.
Notice discharged.