Find a Lawyer

Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1959, decided on 22nd July 1960.

S. 3 read with S. 11 (4)‑Central Government's Notification No. F. 2 (6)/56‑R‑1 dated 15‑1 Z‑1956‑Conjers powers of disposing of revision applications under S. 11 (4) on all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners appointed before or after date of Notification‑Interpretation of Statutes‑Straining of language‑Permissible to give effect to intention of Legislature.

Notification No. F. 2 (6)/56‑R‑1 dated the 15th December 1956, issued by the Central Government was intended to confer on all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan the powers of a Rehabilitation Commissioner to hear petitions for revision under section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, whether the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner concerned was appointed before or after the date of Notification viz., 15‑12‑1956.

The Central Government intended the notification to have prospective operation, and that fact sufficed for the purpose of the Act having a prospective operation.

A highly rigid interpretation of section 3 was not called for.

Muhammad Ismail v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar P L D 1960 Lah. 194 considered.

[Kaikaus, J., agreed to this interpretation of the Notification after "some straining of language", which was "permissible in order to give effect to the intention of the legislature or the authority responsible for the Notification", although the straining in this case "reached very near the breaking point"].

Ghias Muhammad for Appellant.

Mazhar‑ul‑Haq for Aftab Hussain for Respondent No. 1.

Ishaq Muhammad Additional Settlement Commissioner Legal.

Dates of hearings : 6th April 1960 and 27th June 1960.

This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court is directed against the order passed by my brother Qadeer‑ud‑Din on the 8th of December 1958, whereby he accepted a petition (Writ Petition No. 1462) presented by Muhammad Siddiq. Tae respondents in the writ petition were Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner, Multan, respondent No. 1, Deputy Rehabilitation Commis sioner, Lyallpur, respondent No. 2, and Iqbal Muhammad Proprietor Iqbal Hosiery, respondent No. 3, The case of Muhammad Siddiq in the writ petition was that the orders passed by respondent No. 1 in the petition suffered from a number of defects one of which was that he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition presented by Muhammad Siddiq which met with no success. The contention about the lack of jurisdiction of Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan was accepted by the learned Judge in Chambers, who, as mentioned already, accepted the writ petition and against that order Iqbal Muhammad, who was respondent No. 3 to the writ petition, has presented this appeal.

2. Before the learned Judge in chambers some notifications with regard to the appointment of Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan as Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner were referred to, but he came to the conclusion that these notifications did not empower Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner, to hear the revision petition which he had rejected. Two notifications were brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Chambers and by the one dated the 17th of April 1957, Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan was authorised to exercise the powers of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, in two districts, namely, Lyallpur and Montgomery. The property to which the dispute relates was situated in Lyallpur and as the order of Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan was passed on the 10th of October 1957, it would not be without jurisdiction provided he had been authorised to bear petitions for revision. The petition for revision in question had been presented in the Court of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, who had, acting presumably under section 11 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956); transferred it to the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner for disposal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, could hear a revision petition presented to the Rehabilitation Commis sioner under section 11 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act and in this connection referred to Notification No. F. 2 (6)/56‑R‑I dated the 15th of December 1956, which appeared in the Pakistan Gazette Extraordinary dated the 15th of December 1956. This notification reads as follows:‑--

"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, the Central Government is pleased to appoint with effect from the 22nd of September 1956, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in the Province of West Pakistan as Rehabilitation Commissioners for the respective areas for the purpose of disposal of applications under section 11 (4) of the said Act against the orders of Assistant Deputy and Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners other than themselves."

The notification went on to say that the Ministry of Rehabilitation's Notification No. F. 1 (15)/55/R‑I dated the 14th of October 1955, as amended by Notification No. F. 1 (1)/55‑R‑I dated the 8th of March 1956, on the same subject, was cancelled. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the above‑reproduced notification of the Central Government was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Chambers.

4. Mr. Aftab Husain Khan, who appeared for Muhammad Siddiq who is the first of the three respondents to this appeal, the second respondent being Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan, and the third the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur, contended that the notifica tion dated the 15th December 1956, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant did not confer on Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan the authority to hear petitions for revision. His contention was that the notification, whereby Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan was appointed the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner did not confer on him the power to hear revision petitions presented under section 11 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act and the general notification dated the 15th of December 1956, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, could not confer those powers on Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan who was appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner after that notification has been issued. The argument was that the notification relied upon could have no prospective operation and could only confer the power to hear revision petitions on those Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioners in West Pakistan who had been appointed before or on the 15th of December 1956. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by Mr. Aftab Husain Khan on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Muhammad Ismail v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawer (P L D 1960 Lah. 194), in which the leading judgment was written by my brother Kaikaus. If that decision lays down the law correctly, it is obvious that the appeal must fail notwithstanding the fact that the notification dated the 15th of December 1956, which has been reproduced in paragraph 3, was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Chambers. Mr. Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Additional Settlement Commissioner Lahore, who appeared for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to this appeal, supported the arguments addressed by Mr. Ghias Muhammad, the learned counsel for the appellant, to the effect that the notification dated the 15th of December 1956, conferred on all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan, whether appointed on the 15th of December 1956, or on a subse quent date, the power to hear revision petitions mentioned in section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act.

5. As is clear from its language, the notification dated the 15th of December 1956, was issued in exercise of the powers given by section 3 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. This section is in the following terms:‑--

"In order to carry the provisions of this Act into effect the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint one or more Rehabilitation Commissioners, Additional, Deputy or Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioners for such areas or purposes as may be specified in the notification."

6. The remarks of Kaikaus, J., in Muhammad Ismail v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar which are relevant for the present case occur at page 199 of the report and read as follows :‑--

"Next contention of learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 is that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner had also power to revise an order of his predecessor because he was not only an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner but also a Rehabilitation Commissioner in view of the notification of the Government dated the 15th of December 1956, according to which all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan were also to be Rehabilitation Commissioners for disposal of applications under section 11 (2) against the order of any Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner other than them selves. Now, in the first place, this notification cannot be interpreted to mean that whoever becomes an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner in future will also have powers in accordance with this notification. There is no allegation that Sardar Muhammad Alam Khan had already been appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 15th of Dec ember 1956."

I have carefully considered the matter, but have not been able to persuade myself that the notification dated the 15th of December 1956, did not confer powers mentioned therein on persons appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners after the date of the notification. It is not denied that the only notification whereby the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan were given the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction ordinarily vested in the Rehabilitation Commissioner is the one issued on the 15th of December 1956. This notification did not confer on the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners all powers of revision vested in the Rehabilitation Commissioner because while a Rehabilitation Commissioner could exercise powers of revision even without an application made to him in that behalf, an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner could only hear petitions for revision and could not of his own accord send for the record of a case and pass therein any order that he may deem fit. The question to consider is whether the Central Government by their notification under consideration intended to confer the powers of revision only on those Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners who already held that post or intended that all persons appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners even though appointed after the 15th December 1956, shall have the powers of the Rehabilitation Commissioner mentioned in the notification. From the fact that no notification conferring power on Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners generally or on any particular officer appointed as Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner after the 15th of December 1956, was issued after that date it would appear that it could not have been the intention of the Central Govern ment that only those persons who were appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on dates between the 22nd of September 1956 and the 15th of December 1955, should exercise some powers of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. Had this not been the case, it is inconceivable that the Central Government will not issue any other notification on the subject after the 15th of December 1956, in spite of the fact that a number of persons were appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners after the 15th of December 1956. The object of issuing the notification was to relieve the Rehabilitation Commissioner of the heavy burden that would have fallen on him if all petitions for revision were to be dealt with by him and one can infer that the intention of the Central Government was that every person appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner could, by virtue of his office, hear petitions for revision against orders passed by Assistant, Deputy and Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners other than themselves.

7. The question arises whether the fact that the Government. intended the notification to have prospective operation would suffice for the purpose of its having prospective operation. It was urged during arguments that the notification appointed Officers, who had been appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners between the 22nd of September 1956 and the 15th of December B 1956, as Rehabilitation Commissioner for certain purposes and in this connection reliance was placed on the wording of section 3 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act which has been reproduced in paragraph 3 above. I cannot accept this contention because, though the words used in the notification are that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners are appointed Rehabilitation Commissioners for their respective areas for the purpose of disposal of application for revision, the intention clearly is that the powers to exercise the jurisdiction of Rehabilitation Commis sioner in certain cases was being conferred on the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners. Though not raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 nor mentioned in Muhammad Ismail v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar, I have considered the point whether the last seven words of section 3 which are "as may be specified in the notification" have any bearing on the question that arises. If the last seven words of the section were strictly construed, it would perhaps appear that unless the notification appointing a person to be one of the officers mentioned in .the section mentioned his powers, the notification will by itself confer no power on the officer except those which the Act confers on him, but I am clear in my mind that a highly rigid interpretation of the section is not called for. No other point of any substance was raised during argument and I, would, therefore, hold that the notification dated the 15th December 1956, issued by the Central Government was intended to confer on all Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioners in West Pakistan the powers of a Rehabilita tion Commissioner to hear petitions for revision under section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. Notification No. F. 2 (6)/ 56‑R‑I dated the 15th of December 1956, being sufficient for the purposes of conferring powers mentioned therein on all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan, Mr. Faiz Muhammad Khan was competent to dispose of the revision petition rejected by him and his order being with jurisdiction could not be set at naught by issue of a writ. Consequently I would accept the appeal and withdraw the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers, but would pass no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction conferred by section 3 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act on the Central Government is only for the appointment of a Rehabilitation Commissioner and by the notification dated the 15th of December 1956, Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners were appointed as Rehabilitation Commissioners. Now, if we were to ask the question ; who were appointed by this notification , it would be difficult to answer that those persons who were not in existence at the time were so appointed. An appointment can refer only to a known person and the notification could not be read as meaning that whoever is in future appointed an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, he should be deemed to have been appointed as the Rehabilitation Commissioner. It is for this reason that I had in the case reported in Muhammad Ismail v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar (P L D 1960 Lah. 194) taken the view that the notification could not relate to persons appointed after the 15th of August 1956. In that case, however, the point was not material, for the case had been decided on another ground and I have reconsidered the question whether I can strain the language of section 3 and of the notification so as to interpret the notification as conferring powers even on persons appointed after the 15th of December 1956. Some straining of language is permissible in order to give effect to the intention o: the Legislature or the authority responsible for the notification, and though in the present case the straining reaches very near the breaking point I think in view of the disastrous results which can follow, if we hold the proceedings before the Rehabilitation Commissioners to be without jurisdiction, I should agree tot straining the language even to this extent. I would therefore, read the word "appoint" as referring to conferring of power so that we can say that by this notification powers were conferred on all persons who were to be appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in future of being Rehabilitation Commissioners. I agree with my learned brother that this appeal be accepted and the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside without any order as to costs.

A.H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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