h1

P L D 2007 SC 121

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN
V/S
RAJA MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER

Per Javed Iqba, J-Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 4 & 25-
r/w Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib
(Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983)-

The lawful course for C.D.A would have been to challenge the order dated 7-9-1988 passed by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib instead of filing the review.

It must not be lost sight of that after the rejection of representation by the President, preferred on behalf of C.D.A under Article 32 of P.O.1 of 1983 in which C.D.A. has given categoric undertaking to the office f the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib that order dated 14-9-1994 would be implemented in letter and spirit.

It is not understandable that if the decision was not available how and why categoric assurance was given to the office of the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib for the implementation of order date 14-9-1994, no answer could be given by learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant.

We have observed in the same wake of events that respondent meted discrimination as in similar cases escalation had been granted to a few other contractors. In this regard the attention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of C.D.A was invited to the case of Aslam Khan and sons who were awarded escalation as per direction of former Chairman CDA in the similar nature of work. In our considered view different yardsticks could not have been fixed to award compensation and the C.D.A. has not authority to pass discriminatory orders in an arbitrary manner which aspect of the matter squarely falls within mal-administration. It hardly needs any explanation that “Equal protection and equal treatment of citizens similarly placed was guaranteed by provisions of Arts. 4 and 25 of the Constitution. Government and other statutory functionaries in a democratic set-up are bound to act in public matters justly, fairly and in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject.

The C.D.A. should have not filed a review qua order dated 7-9-1988 passed by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib but a representation should have been filed pursuant to the provisions as contained in Article 32 of P.O. 1 of 1983 within prescribed period of time and after its rejection further action could have been initiated for the redressal of their grievances. It would be a mockery of law to direct either the C.D.A. or the contractor to approach the civil Court after expiry of about two decades.

In view of what has been discussed herein above the CDA cannot be allowed to take complete somersault in view of its categoric undertaking given to the contractor. Being the apex Court having ultimate jurisdiction, certain technicalities and legal intricacies as pressed into service can be examined in any other suitable case.” The Supreme Court should have the fullest power to do full justice without fettering itself with any self-imposed restrictions which are no longer necessary in the context of the changed circumstances in which it does now function.” Noora v. The State PLJ 1973 SC 150. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. [pp.. 128, 130,131,133] C,D,E,F,G,H & K

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: