JUDGMENT KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. - Respondent No. 2 was taken over/nationalized in the year 1976 and handed over to the petitioner for running it. This action was taken under Section 5 of Flour Milling Control and Development Act, LVI1 of 1976. This Act was repealed in the year 1977 and respondent No. 2 was restored to its previous ownership/management. According to the Net Worth Value as determined by the Committee appointed under Section 5 of Flour Milling Control and Development Act LVI1, of 1976, the liabilities of the respondent No. 2 were more than its assets. The value was fixed at Rs. 23,12,561/-. On its return, this value was fixed at Rs. 21,80,205/-. A sum of Rs.
1,32,356/- was thus considered payable to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2. On 29.6.1978 notice to pay Rs. 1,32,356/- was issued to respondent No. 2. On 28.8.1978 Rs. 5,82,808/- (Annexure- W). Petitioner represented for recall of the direction 'but this representation was rejected by the Federal Government or 21.10.1992. In this Constitutional petition, direction of the Federal Government to pay additional sum of Rs. 5,82,808/- vidt Annexure-W, is called in question.
2. It is submitted by Kh. Muhammad Faruq, Advocate fc the petitioner that only one representation is permissible unde Rule 4 of the Agrarian Establishments Compensation Rules, 197 and, therefore, the direction of the Federal Government on 4t representation was illegal, its $ also contended that petition accepted the payment of compensation on 1.8.1979 through cross cheques without protest and any reservation and as such respondent No. 2 is estopped from claiming any more amount, it is also urged that Federal Government has no power of review, In reply, it is maintained by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order as the petitioner has no independent existence and it is bound to follow the direction of Federal Government, it is also urged that the petition is barred by laches as it has been filed on 3.4.1993 against the order dated 4.7.1992. On merits, it is contended that the Federal Government was competent and rightly directed the payment of additional sum.
3. Petitioner is a legal person created under Section 5 of Flour Milling Control and Development Act, LVI1 of 1976. It has the capacity to acquire the property and to sue in its name, it is, therefore, separate entity than the Federal Government and as an independent legal person, it can feel aggrieved against the direction of the Government and can validly invoke the jurisdiction Of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, In this case clearly, it is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199. The objection to the maintainability is, therefore, rejected.
4. Next submission that the petition is belated is equally without force. The petition has been filed after about nine months. It cannot be said that the delay is inordinate. The objection is overruled.
5. Rule 4 of the Agrarian Establishment Compensation Rules, 1978 envisages a representation against the assessm ent made by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 made this representation and was successful in having the respondent No. 2 made a representation under Rule 4 of the Agrarian Establishments Compensation Rules, 1978 to the petitioner. Copy of this representation is Annexure-C. It was forwarded to the Federal Government. On 19.3.1979 Federal Government- respondent No. 1 decided the representation vide Annexure-E. Respondent No. 1 devaluated the Net Worth Value and Jound that Rs. 2,67,644/- were payable to respondent No. 2 on that score, In all a total of Rs. 6,95,035.24 was directed to be paid to respondent No. 2. On 1.8.1979 the petitioner paid this amount to respondent No. 2 through two cross cheque. After receiving the amount, on 17.12.1979 respondent No. 2 filed second representation for miror claim but this was rejected on 24.1.1980 (Annexures-L and M). On 23.4.1980 respondent No. 2 made a 3rd representation which was rejected on 20.4.1981 vide Annexure-S. Still no deterred, respondent No. 2 made a 4th representation on 7.1.1982 and this representation was rejected by respondent No. 1 on 26.1.1982. Respondent No,. 2 in 1991 moved the Wafaqi Mohtasib. On 30.10.1991 the learned Mohtasib recommended that Government will hear respondent No. 2 and decide its representation afresh. This recommendation was accepted and it was on 4.7.1992 that the Federal Government directed the petitioner to pay additional sum of Net Worth Value revised and in getting a compensation of Rs. 6,95,035.24. It received this amount on 1.8.1979 through two cross cheques. The covering letter forwarding the cross cheques is Annexure-F and it clearly states that the two cheques represent the amount to be payable to respondent No. 2. "On account of full and final payment payable to you under Section 5 of the Flour Milling Control and Development (Repeal) Ordinance, 1977, are enclosed herewith,..................... " Respondent No. 2 has filed a written statement but has attached no document with it showing that respondent No. 2 ever protested that th6 amount was not for full and final payment. There is another interesting feature. From 1982 till 1991 for almost nine years,"respondent No. 2 keeps silent and takes no action to press the claim for more compensation. No judicial remedy is availed, it is after nine years that respondent No. 2 wakes up and approaches the Wafaqi Mohtasib. This silence for the period of nine years clearly points to the correctness of the petitioner's claim that the amount of compensation covered by the two cross cheques was accepted by respondent No. 2 as final compensation. Respondent No. 2 clearly is estopped from claiming more. This aspect of the case has been ignored by respondent No. 1 and the impugned order, therefore, is bad in law. The suggestion of Kh. Faruq that petitioner woke up after nine years because of favourable1 political climate is not altogether irrelevant, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. No attempt at all has been made by learned counsel either of respondent No. 1 or of respondent No. 2 to justify the enhancement in amount of compensation. Consequently, it has to be held that respondent No. 1 wrongly awarded the additional amount vide Annexure-W. Similarly, no attempt whatsoever has been made to' show that respondent No. 1 could have reviewed the earlier orders dismissing 2nd, 3rd and 4th representations filed by the petitioner.
7. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of respondent No. 1 Annexure- W is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and, therefore, of no legal effect. Parties are left to bear their on. Costs.