MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHATTER Versus COMMISSIONER REHABILITATION, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT, CAMP MIRPUR

SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILLANI, J. ‑‑‑ An order passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.43 of 2003 on 20‑2‑2004, is called in question through this appeal with leave of the Court.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that Nasir Ahmed and three others filed a revision petition captioned Nisar Ahmed and others v. Muhammad Sharif Chatter and others before the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 11‑2‑2002 against the order of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mirpur dated 27‑8‑2002. An objection was raised by the appellant that in view of the Government Notification No.574‑83 dated 29‑3‑1994, the powers of appeals, revision and review etc. relating to rehabilitation matters for Mirpur Division are vested in Commissioner, Mirpur Division, hence the Rehabilitation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The Rehabilitation Commissioner disallowed the objection and held that he is empowered to hear the revision petition despite the notification vide his order, dated 15‑4‑2003. The Custodian also agreed with the order. The writ petition was filed in the High Court against this order, which was also dismissed on 20‑2‑2004. Hence this appeal with leave of the Court.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate, appearing for the parties and gone through the relevant law and notifications issued in this behalf. The first notification issued by the Government is Council Order No.431/52, dated 17th of September, 1952; which is reproduced as follows:‑

"In exercise of the powers vested in it under section 3 of the Azad Kashmir Rehabilitation Ordinance of 1952, the Azad Kashmir Government is pleased to appoint the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioners and the Revenue Assistants in the Azad Kashmir territory as Rehabilitation Commissioner, Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioners and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioners respectively within the local limits of their ordinary jurisdiction. The Revenue Assistant Rehabilitation, Mirpur will also be Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and the work in the district will be divided by the Deputy Commissioner between the two Revenue Assistants, if found necessary."

4. Another notification was issued by the Government on 29‑3‑1994 which is also reproduced as follows:‑‑

5. The Government is competent‑.to appoint the Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 3 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant section is reproduced as follows:‑‑

"3. Appointment of Rehabilitation Commissioners .‑‑‑ 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 and Additional, Deputy and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioners for such areas or purposes as may be, specified in the notification."

Perusal of this section reveals that the Government is competent to appoint more 'than one Rehabilitation Commissioners for such areas or purposes as may be specified in the notification.

6. The perusal of the notification dated 17th of September, 1952, reproduced above unequivocally reveals that Government has appointed Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Revenue Assistants as Rehabilitation Commissioners, Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioners and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioners, respectively within the local limits of their ordinary jurisdiction. It is in the notice of the Court that Azad Jammu and Kashmir is divided in two divisions comprising Muzaffarabad and Mirpur with two Commissioners administering each of the division. Thus, the Commissioner of the Mirpur Division is the Rehabilitation Commissioner for local limits of his jurisdiction. This position is further made clear through subsequent notification dated 29‑3‑1994 that Commissioner, Mirpur Division is designated as Rehabilitation Commissioner for the purpose of hearing and disposal of revisions, reviews and appeals. "Purpose and area" is clearly mentioned in the notification which is clearly in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Rehabilitation Act. However, what appears confusing in the notification dated 29‑3‑1994 is reference to section 19 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1956. It should have been section, 3 not 19 of the Rehabilitation Act. While construing a statute, it has to be read as a whole and every notification issued under the statute shall be read within the meaning and spirit of law which authorizes issuing such notification. The notification dated 29‑3‑1994 is in fact continuation of earlier notification dated 17th of September, 1952, though it is not specifically mentioned in it. The law and notification have to be read in juxtaposition to each other so as to ensure their purpose.

7. The purpose of notifications appear to facilitate the general public to get their grievances redressed at their door steps, hence the entrustment of powers of appeal, revision and review relating to Mirpur Division to Commissioner, Mirpur is perfectly in accordance with law and Commissioner, Mirpur Division shall be deemed as Rehabilitation Commissioner for the purposes mentioned in the notifications.

In the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and it is directed that the revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Mirpur shall be decided by him in accordance with law in his capacity as Rehabilitation Commissioner. The appeal is accepted with costs.

H.B.T./138/SC(AJ&K) Appeal accepted.