' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohatasib-e-Aala, who rejected the same. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a representation before the Appellate Authority under Article 32 of the President Order No.1, 1983 which was rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide order, dated 23-4-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the representation was dismissed by the authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney General entered appearance on Court's call. He submits that the authority has dismissed the representation of the petitioner in the administrative capacity, therefore, providing personal hearing to the petitioner does not arise. He further-submits that complaint was rejected by the Wafaqi Mohtasib-e-Ala,which was upheld by the authority under Article 32 of the President Order No.1, 1983, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that Appellate Authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner after application of mind with reasons, therefore, the ratio of the Muhammad Tariq Pirzada's case is not attracted. He further submits that respondent has already filed IntraCourt Appeal and the petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court qua the view taken by this Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and until the same is prohibited by the wording of the statute itself. It is pertinent to mention here that Article 32 of the President Order No.1 of 1983 does not contain any prohibition qua providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, impugned order is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazlur Rahman (PLD 1964 SC 410). Mere reading of the impugned order itself reveals that it was passed by the respondents without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, impugned order is hit by the principle of natural justice, which is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Superior Court in the following judgments:-- ' Pakistan Chrome Mines v. The Enquiry Officer (PLD 1983 SC. 1208).
' Pakistan and others v Public at Large (PLD 1987 SC 304).
' University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90).
' The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Federation of Pak. v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada."(1999 SCM R 2189).
"Federation of Pak. v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada."(1999 SCM R 2744).
"Mst. Nusrat Imtiaz v. Govt. Of Pakistan" (NLR 2000 Civil 54).
It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. Even Obiter Dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon this Court. As mentioned above, the impugned order is hit by the principle of natural justic' , therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also settled principle of law that mere filing of a petition or Intra-Court Appeal, does not mean that the law declared by this Court is ceased to exist. It is also settled principle of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy and is a social binding contract between the organ of the State and people of Pakistan. By virtue of Article 5(2) of the Constitution, everybody is bound to obey the command of the Constitution as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case" (PLD 1975 SC 383). Article 4 of the Constitution also cast duty upon each and every authority to act in accordance with law. Law means not only the statute law alone but is used in its generic sense as connoting all that is treated as law in this country including even the judicial principles laid down from time to time by the Superior Courts, as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Manzoor Elahi's case's" (PLD 1975 SC 66).
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the order of the Appellate Authority is without lawful authority and the same is set aside. Meaning thereby the representation filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. I have taken the aforesaid view in the various Constitutional petitions. Therefore, I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well-known principle of consistency as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muzaffar Khan's case" (PLD 1959 SC 9). The petitioner is directed to appear before Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 7-7-2004, who is directed to hear the petitioner and the agency or his representative and thereafter send the representation of the petitioner along with his recommendations to the Appellate Authority for necessary action. The learned counsel of. The petitioner is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures to Dr. Danishwar Malik, learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, who is directed to notify the order to the aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.