Power of Review exercised by Wafaqi Mohtasib

PLJ 2001 Lahore 875 Present: CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. M/S. KASUR OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE-Petitioner versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, LAW, JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION through PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD and 3 others-Respondents W.P. No. 5538 of 2000, dismissed on 22.9.2000. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- —-Art. 199-President Order 1 of 1983 of Wafaqi Mohtasib-Wafaqi Mohtasib decided grievance of petitioner but petitioner being aggrieved of Order filed review petition before Wafaqi Mohtasib -Respondents being aggrieved of order in review filed representation before President- President accepted representation of respondents and set-aside decision of Wafaqi Mohtasib -Writ petition against- Wa / hgz Mohtasib has' no power to review its own order-Power of review was not matter of procedure but of jurisdiction and unless power was conferred expressly it could not be exercised-Right of review is substantive right and is always creation of statute on the subject-Impugned order supported by reasons- Held : In such type of appeals President of Pakistan is not bound to provide personal hearing to petitioner—Petition dismissed. [P. 876] A PLD 1981 SC 94; NLR 1995 U.C. 596 rel. 1999 CLC 583 distinguished. Ch. Muhammad Saeed Warriach , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar , Deputy Attorney General for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22.9.2000.. order Brief facts out.of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner approached Wafaqi Mohtasib for redressal of his grievance. Learned Wafaqi Mohtasib after providing personal hearing to all the concerned dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 9.3.1992. Petitioner being aggrieved filed review petition before the Wafaqi Mohtasib who reviewed the earlier order vide order dated 27.12.1993. The respondents being aggrieved filed representation before the President of Pakistan who accepted the same through the impugned order dated 27.1.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside as impugned order does not contain any reason. In support of his contention he relied upon 1999 CLC 583." Muhammad Tariq Pirzada vs. Govt. of Pakistan. He submits that the impugned order passed by the President without providing personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, same is hit by principle of natural justice. 2. Learned Deputy Attorney General submits that President of Pakistan has accepted review with reasons as the Wafaqi Moh tasib has no power to review its earlier or^ ?r. He further submits that the President of Pakistan is not duty bound to 4 ass an order after providing personal hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that there is no provision in the President Order 1 of 1983 on the basis of which Wafaqi Mohtasib has any power to review its earlier order. The impugned order contained this reason that the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no power to review its own order. Therefore, the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order does not contain reason has no force. The reason being that the power to review was not a matter of mere procedure but of jurisdiction and unless the power was conferred expressly it could not be exercised. Necessarily, therefore, it is a substantive right and cannot be intendment be invoked as is being argued on the language of the provision. In Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shaft PLD 1981 S.C 94. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a principle that the right of review is a substantive right and is always the creation of a relevant statute on the subject. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as in the impugned order the respondents have given reason while accepting the review of the respondents. In such type of appeals President of Pakistan is not bound to provide personal hearing to the petitioner as per principle laid down by this Court in Malik Azam Jan's case NLR 1995 U.C. 596. Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. (S.A.) Petition dismissed.