Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS Respondent: SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,Khan A. Hamid & Aftab Sherazi
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 439
[Lahore High Court]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
MUHAMMAD SHAFI
Versus
SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT and others
Writ Petition No. 11571 of 1991, decided on 10th February, 1993.
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Non‑speaking order, passed in revision by Authority‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's appointment as Octroi Inspector was set aside by Deputy Commissioner ‑‑‑Revisional Authority affirmed such order without assigning any reason in support thereof‑‑‑Proceedings before Revisional Authority involved valuable rights of parties and were as such at least quasi‑judicial if not judicial in nature‑‑‑Disposal of such case in a slipshod manner could not be countenanced‑‑‑Order passed by Revisional Authority being a non‑speaking order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Case was remanded to Revisional Authority for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner.
Ch. Hafiz Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Khan A. Hamid for Respondent No. 3.
Aftab Sherazi for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
Date of hearing: 10th February, 1993.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question orders, dated 12th October, 1991 and 24th February, 1991 passed by the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, and the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, respectively, whereby appointment" of the petitioner as Octroi Inspector was set aside.
2. It is not necessary to dilate upon the facts of the case inasmuch as one of contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while disposing of the revision fled by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, has acted in a mechanical manner by passing an order unsupported by reasons.
3. Khan A. Hamid, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that pursuant to orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Secretary, a fresh selection has since been held in which respondent No. 3, Inspector has been appointed as Octroi Inspector and as such this petition has become infructuous.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel is well‑merited. It is obvious from above perusal of the order passed by the Secretary that while disposing of the revision petition, no reason at all has been given. It is regretable that the Secretary having himself noticed the various arguments of the parties, failed to pass a speaking order and chose to dismiss the revision petition by observing that
"After considering the arguments of both the parties and perusal of the record, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 24‑2‑1995 are upheld and revision petitions are disposed of with this single order."
5. The Secretary was exercising revisional jurisdiction which has been vesting in him under section 51 of the Punjab Government Ordinance, 1979. The proceedings before him involved valuable rights of the parties and were as l such at least Quasi judicial if not judicial in nature. The disposal of such a case in a slipshod manner cannot be countenanced.
6. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, that on account of fresh selection having taken place, this petition has become infructuous inasmuch as this selection has been held pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was subjected to revisions which, as already observed, was not disposed of in accordance with law. That being so, it cannot be said that there is no live issue to be determined in the present proceedings.
In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, the order passed by the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, on 14th October, 1991, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the revision filed by the petitioner, shall be deemed to be pending before him and shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. There shall be no orders as to costs.
AA/M‑1869/L Case remanded.