' Order dated 26-1-1994 passed by respondent No,1, Secretary to the Government Punjab, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore, has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 had dismissed the appeal of respondent No,3 on 12-5-1993 which order had become final, the same could not be reviewed by him as no power of review was available under the law. The learned counsel for respondent No,3, however, contends that although the appeal was dismissed on 12-5-1993, no written order had been passed by respondent No,1, he could in the circumstances review his order.
Similar is the stance of learned Additional Advocate-General.
3. The controversy is thus narrow and short as to whether respondent No,1 could lawfully exercise power of review when he had dismissed the appeal on 12-5-1993. In the review petition filed by respondent No,3, it was specifically stated by respondent No,3 that "our appeal was heard on 12-5- 1993 and declined" (paragraph No,5 of the review petition). Moreover, in paragraph 6 again, it is prayed that "the order passed on 12-5-1993 regularizing the decision of Licensing' Authority to grant Punjmin area of 4.82 Acres to Raja Nawab Ali may be reviewed. (ii) pending the finalization of the above review, the orders passed on 12-5-1993 may be held in abeyance and DI&MD restrained from taking any further action in relation to the area concerned". There remains, thus, no manner of doubt that appeal filed by respondent No,3 was heard and dismissed by respondent No,1 on 12-5- 1993 and it was the dismissal thereof which was sought to be reviewed. Whether any written order was communicated to the parties or not, would not make any difference in the context. The question, therefore, is whether the law provides for the review of an order passed on appeal. Under rule 98 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 1986 an aggrieved party has the remedy of filing of an appeal before the Government. Sub-rule (2) thereof provides that "the decision of the Government on such appeal shall be final" Once such a decision had been taken, it had become final and respondent No,1 had become functus officio. No provision of law has been brought to my notice, which empowers respondent No,1 to review any such order. The law is quite settled that there is no inherent power of review available to a statutory functionary unless so provided by the law itself. In Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94, it was held that right of review is a substantive right and is always a creation of the relevant Statute on the subject. The assumption that a review in appeal is a continuation of the appeal is not correct, with the result that the further crollary drawn therefrom in favour of existence of a right of review on that score will also consequently, fall. In Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore through representative v. United Bank Ltd. Through Attorneys PLD 2000 Lah. 162 contention as to inherent power of review was repelled. Once the appeal had been dismissed, he should have left the parties to seek remedy under the law, instead of reviewing his decision. It was neither a matter of some inadvertent mistake nor of clerical error but was of substantive 'rights of the party concerned. The legal position, therefore, does not admit of any obscurity on the point. Respondent No,1 acted without lawful authority in entertaining the review petition and accepting the same through the impugned order. Order dated 26-1-1994, thus, is not sustainable in law, it is declared so accordingly.
' As a result of the above, this petition is accepted. No order as to costs.