Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 176 of 1986, decided on 16th February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 9‑‑Wafaqi Mohtasib‑‑‑Jurisdiction, functions and powers of‑‑Mohtasib is empowered to undertake investigation into allegation of maladministration on part of any agency or any of officers/ employees of such agency on complaint made by aggrieved person or his own motion.‑ [Jurisdiction]

‑‑‑5. 2(1)‑‑Word 'agency'‑‑Meaning and scope‑‑Agency, held, would mean, Ministry, Division, Department, Commission or Of(ice' of the Federal Government or statutory Corporation or other institution established /controlled by Federal Government but would not include Supreme Court.‑‑[Words and phrases].

(c) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983)‑‑

‑‑‑5. 2(2)‑‑Word "maladministration" ‑‑Definition of.‑‑[Words and

phrases].

(d) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983)‑‑

‑‑‑5. 2(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑WAPDA, held, would fall within definition word "agency"‑‑Where complaint would show maladministration against employee of WAPDA, Wafaqi Mohtasib, held, would have jurisdiction to initiate investigation into allegations‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked with regard to action taken by Wafaqi Mohtasib within scope of authority.‑‑[Jurisdiction].

Muhammad Khalid Alvi for Petitioner.

Petitioner who is a Line Superintendent in WAPDA has been charge-sheeted for committing certain irregularities while executing the work of electrification of Chak No. 142/TDA, tehsil and district Leiah. It appears that Israr Hussain respondent No.l6, a resident of the said Chak, lodged a complaint with the Wafaqi Mohtasib alleging that the electrification of the Chak had not been conducted according to the approved map and that the deviations were made deliberately by the - present petitioner. An inquiry was initiated on this complaint as a result whereof the petitioner has since been charge-sheeted. Petitioner ' has filed the present constitutional petition praying that "the investigation conducted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Wafaqi Mohtasib, Islamabad, and the Director, Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, Regional Office, Lahore) from the filing of the very Ist complaint of respondent No. 16 and all subsequent proceedings done and orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 to 7 may graciously be declared to be illegal, void, and without lawful authority."

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits , that the petitioner has no grievance against the issuance of charge-sheet by the departmental authorities and that he feels aggrieved with the initiation of investigation by the Wafaqi Mohtasib. Learned counsel is unable to refer to any law or authority that the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no jurisdiction in the matter. Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Mohtasib have been laid down in section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 (President's Order 1 of 1983). According to this provision, Mohtasib is empowered to undertake any investigation into any allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of its officers or employees, on a complaint made by any aggrieved person or of his own motion. "Agency" is defined in section 2(1) to mean, a Ministry, Division, Department, 13 Commission or office of the Federal Government or a statutory corporation or other institution established or controlled by the Federal Government but does not include the Supreme Court "Maladministration" has also been defined in section 2(2) which is reproduced hereunder.

"Maladministration" includes,--

(i) a decision, process, recommendation, act of omission or commission which--

(a) is contrary to law, rules or regulations or is a departure from established practice or procedure, unless it is bona fide and for valid reasons; or

-(b) is perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable, unjust, biased, oppressive, or discriminatory; or

(c) is based on irrelevant grounds; or

(d) involves the exercise of powers, or the failure or refusal to do so, for corrupt or improper motives, such as, bribery, jobbery, favouritism, nepotism and administrative excesses; and

(ii) neglect, in attention, delay, incompetence, inefficiency and inaptitude, in the administration or discharge of duties and responsibilities."

3. WAPDA, undoubtedly, falls within the definition of "Agency" and the petitioner is its employee. Complaint (Annexure 'E') shows that the complainant Israr Hussain was a person aggrieved and the, complaint disclosed allegations of maladministration. That being so, the Wafaqi Mohtasib clearly had the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and he acted rightly in initiating the investigation into the allegations made by the complainant. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner in so far as it 'relates to the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib to order inquiry /investigation into the allegations made by the complainant is wholly misconceived. This petition is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

A.A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.