Ombudsman cannot defend its decisions before higher forum

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that the Federal Ombudsman by law and by design is not empowered to defend its decisions before a higher forum as it would totally tarnish its neutrality.

"The filing of this petition by the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s Secretariat through its Secretary

has left us concerned and disturbed. We, therefore, direct the Ombudsman to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report to this court within two months from today as to who had authorized the filing of the instant petition and the action taken against the concerned officials", says a four page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while dismissing a petition, filed by Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat against the Lahore High Court decision to set aside Mohtasib findings.

An industrial gas consumer had approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) to complain about the excessive gas billing by Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd (SNGPL) and the “maladministration” at the hands of its officials.

In the “Findings Recommendations” issued by Wafaqi Mohtasib’s Secretariat dated 28.10.2014 the complaint of industrial gas consumer against SNGPL was rejected.

Later, industrial gas consumer filed a review and in its “Revised Findings” and “Final Recommendations for Implementation” issued by the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s Secretariat on February 26,2016 recommended SNGPL to reconsider the matter by adopting proper procedure and take disciplinary action against the delinquent officers, etc.

However, SNGL challenged these recommendations of the Ombudsman before the LHC. The high court on December 13, 2016 held that the disputes pertaining to detection bills on allegations of meter tampering fell within the exclusive jurisdictionof the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (Ordinance) and Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over such like matters.

However, Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat challenged the LHC order before the apex court.

The division bench of the apex court led by Justice Shah in its order noted that the Ombudsman, cannot be said to be aggrieved, if the powers to redress mal-administration vested in him under the law are modified (enhanced or curtailed) by the Parliament or through interpretation of the constitutional court.

"Challenging the powers would be challenging the law and intent of the Parliament. Ombudsman, being a creature of the statute, cannot challenge the powers vested inhim by the legislature, however, the parties to the proceedings may bring such a challenge. The powers enjoyed by the Ombudsman cannot be confused with his rights under the law", says the order.

The order further notes that a neutral quasi judicial adjudicatory forum created under a statute cannot become a party to the proceedings brought before it. Such a forum is simply to redress mal-administration by exercising its powers under the law.

"The Ombudsman by law and by design is not empowered to defend its decisions before a higher forum by becoming a party to the proceedings. This would totally tarnish its neutrality", says the order.

The court held that that hopelessly misconceived petition passes for frivolous litigation and has resulted in wasting the time of the court, dismissing the petition with costs of Rs 100,000/- imposed under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.