๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐๐ฐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ, ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐/๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ก: ๐๐
In a short judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier view in Fazal Muhammad v. State (PLD 1987 SC 273) and Ahsan Abid v. Khusru Bakhtiar (PLD 2022 SC 712 ) and held that any petition which does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution, law or Rules must not be entertained by the institution office at the first instance. The case in hand came in the background of a review petition for restoration of a CMA, which had been earlier dismissed on maintainability and non-prosecution. The petitioner had filed more than three CMAs and almost all of them had been dismissed on maintainability as well as non-prosecution. He kept filling CMAs for restoration of the same, instead of a review petition. The principle of law is that when a petition is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on maintainability, review should be filed instead of restoration application. The petitioner opted for the other way around and adopted a wrong track to get the desirable relief. His application was dismissed by the Registrar,which was subsequently dismissed by a judge in chamber in chamber appeal. The petitioner filed a review petition against both of the orders passed on the administrative side.
The Court referred to two of its previous judgments mentioned above and held that review under Article 188 of the Constitution is entertainable against a judicial order alone. An administrative order is not covered under this Article. Neither the law or any rule of the Supreme Court Rules envisages such a provision which supports a review petition against an administrative order. Thus, a petition which does not get support from any law, must not be entertained by the institution office at the first instance.
c.r.p._1077_2023
