MUHAMMAD ISMAIL THAKAR SONS LTD Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

1. DORAB PATEL, J . The contention is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, because the second respondent had no power to remand the case to the third respondent. This plea was advanced on the language of section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but, in our opinion, that would not be the correct construction of the section. We are supported in our view by a judgment reported in A I R 1961 Andh Pra. 324. Mr. Abdur Rashid Mirza was referred to this judgment, and he admitted that it was directly on the construction of the section. Addi tionally, by parity of reasoning the view taken in P L D 1975 S C 32 is also fatal to the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. We would however direct the third respondent, to whom the case is remanded, to decide the petitioner's claim according to law and not be influenced by any observations in the impugned order. We thank Mr. Naimuddin for his assistance.

2. Petition dismissed.