Law:

Section:

Keywords: Result: APPROVED FOR REPORTING Oazi Faez Isa, J. I have read the judgment authored by my distinguished colleague Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, but with profound respect I cannot bring myself to agree therewith. Before proceeding to highlight the points of disagreement, it would be appropriate to set out the background and certain material facts. Background - Constitution of a larger Bench 2. The judgment dated 19th August 2015 ("the judgment under review") was decided by a three Member Bench. I authored it and the other Members were the then Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, after which the then Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja retired. When these cases came up before a three Member Bench on 10th December 2015 my distinguished colleagues were of the view that, "considering the questions involved in the matter, we request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench", without elaborating what such questions were or why the determination thereof may require the constitution of a larger bench. I dissented. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following extract from my dissent: "The matter is relatively simple and there is hardly any justification for the constitution of a larger Bench. Moreover, no application for the constitution of a larger Bench has been submitted nor even a verbal request has been made in this regard. Therefore, with profound respect, I cannot bring myself to agree with the recommendation for the constitution of a larger Bench. It would also be appropriate to reproduce Rule 8 of Order XXVI of the Rules, which provides that: "8. As far as practicable the application for review shall be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed." I can do no better than to reproduce the following extract from the judgment of my distinguished colleague from the case of Reviews on behalf of Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani Sheikh and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 1024): "2. There is great wisdom in law, that the review, generally and ordinarily should be heard by the same Court and the Court in this context is an interchangeable term with the Judge. The object behind the…