Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 20(2),21,31(2)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 10th January 1963, in Writ Petition No. 71 of 1962).   Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXYIII of 1958), S. 20(2) read with Ss. 21 & 31(2)-Chief Settlement Commissioner's powers of revision under S. 20(2) delegated by virtue of S. 31(2) to Settlement Commissioner- Delegatee, held, not entitled automatically, without express delegation to exercise powers of review under S. 21 so as to review his own order (by majority : S. A. Rahman, J. with concurrence of Hamoodur Rahman, J., Kaikaus, J. contra) Interpretation of Statutes-Lacuna in statute to be avoided as far as possible-Review-Inherent power of Courts.   The question was whether a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who is delegated revisional powers [section 31(2)] of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 could be deemed to be automatically armed with powers of reviewing (section 21) his own order, as such delegate.   Held (per S. A. Rahman, J, Hamoodur Rahman, J. concurring) that the power of review in this context could not be regarded as ancillary to the revisional power conferred on the delegate. The revisional power and the power of review of his own order, conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner, are contained in two separate sections of the Act. Delegation of power under one section cannot be construed to carry with it a delegated power under the other section also. A power of review is a creature of the statute and it cannot be said that a delegate exercising revisional powers under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Act has inherent power to review orders passed in his capacity as a delegatee.   Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Ghulam Shabbir and another P L D 1964 Kar. 100 and Abdul Hamid v. Muhammad Mashooq Ali Khan P L D 1956 Kar. 509 distinguished.   The argument ab inconvenient was raised, however, that this view would invest the order of the delegate with finality, which perhaps would not be in accord with the intention of the…