A complaint alleging maladministration against the petitioner as filed by Respondent No, 3 before the learned Federal Ombudsman. The proceedings were conducted. Learned Ombudsman recorded his findings as follows:-- "Under the circumstances, it is established that the Agency showed "neglect" & "inattention" in terms of Article 2, Para-2 of President's Order No, 1 of 1983 and failed to move the Asian Development Bank for the issue of Qualified Commitment Letter after establishment of the L.C. and delayed the matter for over four months beyond the expiry of the last date for shipment resulting in the Asian Development Bank's refusal to issue the Qualified Commitment Letter. The Agency is, therefore, directed to import Engines from its own sources or against some alternatives credit as the complainant has pointed out that the engines did not have demand elsewhere. It must also pay the Import Licence Fee to the complainant in respect of the 45/46 Engines. In view of the fact that Asian Development Bank has refused to issue Qualified Commitment Letter under the credit and the Agency will have to make alternate arrangements, the complainant may, however, negotiate with his principals and ensure to waive off the storage charges, interest on the capital etc. The action taken accordingly may be reported to me under Article 11 Para-2 of the President's Order No, 1 1983 by 31.8.1991."
No representation was filed against these findings in terms of and within time prescribed in Article 32 of P.O. No, 1 1983. Instead vide Annex-B review of the said findings was sought. This document is dated 25.8.1991. The review application was turned down vide order Annex-C (dated 13.2.1992). On 12.3.1992 representation Annex-D was filed before the President of the country. This representation was rejected and petitioner was informed on 27.1.2000 vide Annex-E.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the case of "Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCM R 2189" that the said order dated 27.1.2000 is violative of the said judgment inasmuch as President has not applied his mind while deciding the representation. According to the learned counsel the Annex-B is not a review application rather through this document reasons were forwarded to the learned Ombudsman for not complying with the recommendations/directions.
3. I have examined the said documents referred to by me above in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel. I find that the document Annex-B is by all means a review application. No reason has been stated for not complying with findings of the learned Ombudsman. On the other hand, the entire application proceeds with contentions and grounds for review and recall of the findings. Needless to state that the document is headed as review petition.
It is drafted with the said purpose. The grounds have been raised and prayer has been made for review of the said findings.
4. Now it is well settled that the review is 'a substantive right to be conferred by law. The said P.O.
No, 1 of 1983 neither confers said right upon any party or agency nor does it empower the learned Ombudsman to review his findings. In this view of the matter the findings recorded by the President reflecting the said legal position cannot be said to be violative of the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.