Administrative order is not challenge able because only judicial order can challenge.

رجسٹرار کا اصل حکم اور جج ان چیمبرز کا اپیل میں برقرار رکھنے والا حکم دونوں انتظامی نوعیت کے ہیں، اور آئین کے آرٹیکل 188 کے تحت صرف عدالتی احکام کی نظرثانی کی جا سکتی ہے، نہ کہ انتظامی احکام کی۔

غیر قابلِ سماعت ریویو پٹیشن اور رجسٹرار کی آئینی ذمہ داری

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے ایک مرتبہ پھر واضح کر دیا ہے کہ ایسی ریویو پٹیشن جو آئینِ پاکستان، متعلقہ قانون یا سپریم کورٹ رولز کے کسی بھی واضح دائرۂ اختیار میں نہ آتی ہو، وہ ناقابلِ سماعت (Not Maintainable) اور لغو (Frivolous) تصور کی جائے گی۔

عدالتی نظائر

عدالت نے اپنے فیصلے میں درج ذیل اہم نظائر کا حوالہ دیا:

Fazal Muhammad v. State (PLD 1987 SC 273)

Qausain Faisal v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 675)

Ahsan Abid v. Khusru Bakhtiar (PLD 2022 SC 712)

ان فیصلوں میں یہ اصول طے کیا گیا کہ:

جو درخواست آئین، قانون یا قواعد کے تحت قابلِ سماعت نہ ہو

وہ عدالتی کارروائی کے لائق نہیں سمجھی جائے گی

رجسٹرار کا کردار

عدالت نے زور دیا کہ:

سپریم کورٹ رولز 1980 کے آرڈر 17، رول 5 کے تحت

رجسٹرار کی یہ آئینی و انتظامی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ:

غیر قانونی

بے بنیاد

اور لغو درخواستوں کو

عدالت کے روبرو پیش ہونے سے پہلے ہی مسترد کرے۔

یہ اصول نہ صرف عدالتی وقت کے ضیاع کو روکتا ہے بلکہ انصاف کے نظام کو غیر ضروری بوجھ سے بھی محفوظ رکھتا ہے۔

زیرِ نظر ریویو پٹیشن

عدالت نے واضح طور پر قرار دیا کہ:

موجودہ ریویو پٹیشن

نہ تو آئین کے کسی آرٹیکل کے تحت قابلِ سماعت ہے

اور نہ ہی سپریم کورٹ رولز اس کی اجازت دیتے ہیں

لہٰذا:

ریویو پٹیشن کو ناقابلِ سماعت اور ناقابلِ قبول قرار دے کر خارج کر دیا گیا۔

قانونی نتیجہ

یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مزید مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ:

ہر درخواست کا عدالت میں آنا لازمی حق نہیں

بلکہ اس کے لیے آئینی و قانونی بنیاد کا ہونا ناگزیر ہے

بصورتِ دیگر ایسی درخواست لغو تصور ہو گی۔

Must read judgement

SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Review Jurisdiction)

Bench - II:

Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Civil Review Petition No.1077/2023

(Against the order dated 08.011.2023 passed

in C.M. Appeal No.157/2022)

Muhammad Ashraf

… Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer (Administration), WAPDA, and others

… Respondents

For the Petitioner:

Petitioner in person.

For the Respondents:

N.R.

Date of hearing:

31 May 2024

ORDER

Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.- Through the present review petition, the

petitioner seeks a review of the order dated 8 November 2023 passed

by one of us (Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.) whereby his appeal filed

against an order of the Registrar, dated 27 May 2022, was dismissed

and the said order was maintained. By order dated 27 May 2022, the

Registrar had returned being not entertainable a CMA of the petitioner

filed for restoration of his CMA No.2384/2022.

Briefly, the background facts that have given rise to the present

review petition are as follows: By its order dated 3 May 2019, the

Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's service appeal

regarding his annual increments, pensionary benefits, etc., for the

period he remained dismissed from service. He filed a petition for leave

to appeal (CPLA 3020/2019) against that order in this Court and also

filed a review petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his

review petition by its order dated 17 July 2019. Against this order, the

petitioner filed another petition for leave to appeal (CPLA 3774/2019).

The present review petition pertains to the second CPLA, i.e.,

CPLA 3774/2019. This CPLA was dismissed by a two-member Bench

on 5 October 2021, for non-prosecution and for being time-barred.

C.R.P. No.1077/2023.

Instead of filing a review petition, since the CPLA had been dismissed

on the ground of being time-barred also, the petitioner filed an

application (CMA 12715/2021) for restoration of the said CPLA.

Although this application was not entertainable in view of the law

declared in Fazal Muhammad,1 the office wrongly received and

registered it. Anyhow, CMA 12715/2021 was also dismissed by a twomember Bench for non-prosecution on 1 February 2022.

The petitioner then filed an application (CMA 2384/2022) for the

restoration of CMA 12715/2021. This second application was

dismissed by a two-member Bench on 10 May 2022, for nonprosecution and for being non-maintainable. Again, instead of filing a

review petition, since CMA 2384/2022 had been dismissed on the

ground of being non-maintainable also, the petitioner filed an

application (CMA) for the restoration of CMA 2384/2022. The Registrar

returned this application for being not entertainable by order dated 27

May 2022, and the petitioner’s appeal against this order of the

Registrar was dismissed by one of us (Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.) vide

order dated 8 November 2023. Hence, the petitioner has filed this

review petition.

We have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and

examined the record of the case.

Both the Registrar's original order returning the petitioner’s

CMA and the appellate order maintaining that order were

administrative in nature.2 Therefore, we asked the petitioner to specify

under which provision of the Constitution3 or the Rules4 he has filed

the present review petition. He, however, could not cite any such

provision. It hardly needs clarification that Article 188 of the

Constitution and Order 26 of the Rules pertain to the review of judicial

orders, not administrative orders. The misunderstanding of the

petitioner, who has filed the present review petition in person without

obtaining any legal advice, is understandable. But, it is surprising that

the office has entertained the present review petition despite there

Fazal Muhammad v. State PLD 1987 SC 273.

See Qausain Faisal v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 675; Ahsan Abid v. Khusru Bakhtiar PLD

2022 SC 712.

3 The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

4 The Supreme Court Rules 1980.

C.R.P. No.1077/2023.

being no provision for such a review petition in either the Constitution

or the Rules.

As held by this Court in Fazal Muhammad5 on the judicial side

and reiterated in Ahsan Abid6 on the administrative side, a petition

that does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution,

the law or the Rules is "frivolous" and should not be

received/entertained by the Registrar, as per Rule 5 of Order 17 of the

Rules. The office must be vigilant about this legal position and perform

its administrative duty in this regard with due diligence.

The present review petition is neither entertainable nor

maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or the Rules. It

is, therefore, dismissed.

Islamabad,

31st May, 2024.

Approved for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.