' I intend to decide the following Constitutional petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:--
(1) Writ Petition No,1801 of 2004, (2) Writ Petition No,1133 of 2004 and (3) Writ Petition No308 of 2004.
2. The petitioners in Writ, Petition No,1801 of 2004 challenged order, dated 7-10-2002 whereas in Writ Petition No,1133 of 2004 vires of order, dated 4-6-2003 have been challenged on the ground that impugned orders. Were passed by the respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioners.
Similarly petitioners in Writ Petition No,308 of 2004 challenged the vires of order of the respondents dated 22-9-2003 through this Constitutional petition on the ground that the respondents decided the representation of the petitioner in violation of the parameters prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No,8070 of 2003 vide order dated 16-6-2003.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that Constitutional petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners want enforcement of contract through these Constitutional petitions. In support of their contention they relied upon the following judgments:-- ' LCCHS v. Dr. Nusrat Ullah Chaudhry PLD 2002 SC 1068, Nizamuddin v. Civil Aviation Authority 1999 SCMR 467, A.K. Trading Corporation v. Messrs Z.H. Construction PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 7 and Abdul Haq v. Province of Sindh PLD 2000 Kar.
224.
' They further submit that Constitutional petitions are entertained by the Courts in Constitutional jurisdiction qua enforcement of contracts with certain conditions prescribed by the superior Courts whereas the petitioners failed to bring their cases within the parameters prescribed by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Messrs Wak Orient's case 1998 CLC 1178; Bayindir Insaat's case PLD 2001 Lah. 426, Javed Iqbal's case 2004 CLC 478, Network Television Marketing Ltd.'s case 2001 CLC 681 and Messrs Airport Support Service's case 1998 SCMR 2268.
' They further submit that petitioners have alternative remedies to file appeals before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Insurance Ordinance No,39 of 2000 and thereafter petitioners have remedy of appeal before this Court by virtue of section 124 of the said Ordinance.
They further submit that competent authority has not constituted Tribunals in Punjab in terms of aforesaid Insurance Ordinance. In spite of this the petitioners want resolution of disputed question of facts in Constitutional petitions, therefore, the same are not maintainable and the petitioners have to file civil suits before competent Court under section 9 of C.P.C. They further submit that petitioners failed to point out jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. They further submit that petitioner Mst. Razia Begum has concealed material facts as is evident from the note of committee attached at page 23 in Writ Petition No,308 of 2004.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned. Orders in Writ Petition No,1801 of 2004 dated 7-10-2002 and order dated 4-6-2003 challenged in Writ petition No,1133 of 2004 clearly reveal that the respondents passed the impugned orders without issuing any notice to the petitioners. It is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and until it is prohibited by the wording of the statute itself as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazal-ur-Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410. The impugned orders are hit by principle of natural justice, therefore, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law as per law laid down in the following judgments:-- ' Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90; Pakistan and others v. Public-at-large PLD 1987 SC 304 and Pakistan Chrome Mines' case 1983 SCMR 1208.
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. I have taken aforesaid view in 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 Muhammad Muzaffar Khan's case PLD 1959 SC 9.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders in Writ Petition No,1801 of 2004 and Writ Petition 1133 of 2004 are hit by principle of natural justice, therefore, the same are set aside. Meaning thereby the applications filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the respondents. The petitioner are directed to appear before respondent No,2 in his office on 6-5-2004 who is directed to decide the applications of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order within three months till 6-8-2004 either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to decide the applications of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order within three months till 6-8-2004. He is further directed to submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period.
7. The impugned order in Writ Petition No,308 of 2004 dated 22-9-2003 is also not sustainable in the eye of law on the reason that it is admitted fact that petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No,8070 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 16-6-2003 with certain conditions. It is admitted fact that order, dated 16-6-2003 was not challenged by any of the parties before any higher forum, therefore, same is final between the parties on the well-known principle of res judicata as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhs's case. PLD 1987 SC
145. Therefore, the respondents are duty bound to decide the application of the petitioner in terms of order, dated 16-6-2003. The respondents have decided the application of the petitioner without application of mind. It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of the order to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "5. The Corporation had already decided the Representation of the petitioner after providing opportunity to the petitioner to be heard as directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court. The petitioner failed to comply with the orders dated 16-6-2001 by not appearing before the competent authority. Moreover, the Corporation provided ample opportunity to the petitioner to appear on 7- 8-2003 wherein she failed to appear and instead her counsel appeared who could not produce any evidence in rebuttal.
' In view of the aforementioned submissions, this compliance report vide order, dated 16-6-2003 is submitted to be placed on the record as directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,8070 of 2003."
' The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that respondents have decided the application of the petitioner without giving any reasons. After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act it is duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the applications of the citizens with reasons as the law laid down in Messrs Airport Support Service's case 1998 SCMR 2268. It is also settled principle of law as mentioned above, that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. Therefore, impugned order is set aside.
Meaning thereby the application filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the respondents. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No,2 in his office on 6-5-2004 who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order within three months till 6-8-2004 either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order within three months till 6-8-2004. He is further directed to submit report-to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is directed to notify the order to respondent No,2 for necessary action and compliance. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.
' With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of.