' I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:-- ' W.P. No,690 of 2003 and W.P. No,696 of 2003.
2. The brief facts out of which the present writ petitions arise are that the petitioners filed complaints before Wafaqi Mohtasib Aala, who accepted the complaints of the petitioners. The department filed representation before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of P.O. 1 of 1983.
The representation of the department was accepted by the Appellate Authority without providing hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved filed the aforesaid writ petitions on the ground that the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same were passed by the Appellate Authority without providing hearing to the petitioners.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the Appellate Authority is not bound to provide the opportunity to the petitioners for their hearing. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has decided the representation of the department in the administrative 'capacity, therefore, the question of providing personal hearing to the petitioners does not- arise.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned orders itself reveal that the same were passed without providing proper hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq and others (1999 SCM R, 2189)
' Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq and others (1999 SCM R 2744).
' The question of law has been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in view of the aforesaid judgments.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders are set aside, meaning thereby the representations filed by the department shall be deemed to be pending adjudication and respondent No,1 is directed to be entrust the same to the officer not below the rank of B.P.S. 19, who is directed to provide personal hearing to the petitioners and representative of respondent No,3 and then he shall send his recommendations to the Appellate Authority under the provisions of P.O.
I of 1983 to decide the representation in accordance with law.
' With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.