10-01-2005, 12:18 AM
An article has appeared from Dr. Ijaz Ahsan (Nation 2 September 2005). The topic is the new âruleâ according to which gas and electricity consumers are to be denied an appeal to the Federal Ombudsman in connection with excessive bills etc. He quoted how a friend of his suffered when he received a bill of Rs, 25,000 for gas with threat of disconnection. Afraid of his kitchen having no gas he paid the Bill, ran pillar to post with sui gas department and finally went to Federal Ombudsman. Sui Gas took a plea that since consumer paid the bill without any objection or complaint hence it meant he accepted the bill as correct. Federal Ombudsman decided otherwise. Sui Gas company went to appeal before President as per Law. Dr. Ijaz questions why should the President deal with an appeal whereas actually the bureaucracy in his Secretariat decides such appeals. He quotes in support does the President sees and peruse copies of all gas bills.
As far as his remarks that bureaucracy in President Secretariat decides the appeals to President areconcerned, it is a bit surprising that for the last about six months consistently a series of articles, comments and letters to editor are appearing wherein very sarcastically it is said that a âSection Officerâ in the President Secretariat decides such appeals. This, if my memories in this retirement age are not misguiding me this debate all started a year or so back when an ombudsman criticized that ombudsman decisions are turned down just by Section Officers sitting in the Ministry of Law having no proper knowledge and practical training of Law.
3. The true fact is it is not the rules, procedures or laws rather it is the âmanâ sitting on chair which matters and who delivers justice. It does not matter if the man on the chair is a superior judge, a junior grade magistrate, a bureaucrat additional secretary or a 17 grade so called Section Officer. What really matters is if this sitting man is blessed by God with public spirit or otherwise. If the man sitting on the chair is public spirited he would interpret the same rule or law from the universal school of thought that laws and procedures are made for the welfare and betterment of the people. If the sitting man is not blessed with this quality he would interpret the same law and rule from the school of thought that law and rules are made to control the people. And this blessed God given quality is not restricted to judges or bureaucracy or any particularly profession.
4. For example the P.O.I of 1982 Establishment of Federal Ombudsman stated that Ministry of Defence was out of ambit of Federal Ombudsman. But the âman sitting on the chair at that timeâ (Mr. Justice Sardar iqbal the first Ombudsman) interrupted this in the larger interest of common man. He interpreted it that he cannot entertain complaints against Ministry of Defence or organizations under it which related to countryâs defence, defence policies, defence relates sensitive issues but his jurisdiction was not barred at all as far as common manâs general complaints were concerned. He well entertained passengers complaints against PIA and provided relief to thousands. I myself twice or thrice got relief. He well entertained complaints against Combined Telecommunication Authority which is under Ministry of Defence dealing with public telephones in Azad Kashmir. The âmen on chairâ after retirement of first ombudsman fortunately were same blessed public spirited people and kept on entertaining complaints against PIA till late 1990s.
5. Electricity and Gas consumer can no longer file their complaints with Federal Ombudsman. The reason given is that there are now two independent authorities who monitor the working of these two utilities who will listen consumer complaints. For example in case of electricity consumer there is NEPRA authority where such complaints would be filed. If one goes to plain reading of NEPRA establishment order, it would be seen it only tells that a complaint can be filed with it against the licensee (Electricity company) but at no where it mentions that such complaints can ONLY be filed with it and not with Federal Ombudsman. Notwithstanding the above, however if the contention that Federal Ombudsman cannot not entertain complaints against gas or electricity companies due to reason above, then I feel the Federal Ombudsman can not entertain complaints of almost every type and his office should be closed. Reason being that today almost every Department for the last 3-4 years have established a sort of Complaints Center at higher level. For example, as such no complaint against PTCL should be entertained by Federal Ombudsman because an authority namely Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has established a special Cell to receive complaints against telecommunication companies. No complaint should as such be filed with Federal Ombudsman against OPF as Ministry of Manpower & Overseas Pakistanis have established a Cell in the Ministry to receive complaints from Overseas Pakistanis. No complaint as such should be filed with Banking Mohtasib was National Bank of Pakistan has established its own international ombudsman.
6. Came on the chair of the President of Pakistan the most pious, 5 times prayers offerer the famous Mr. Rafiq Ahmed Tarar who recently in the first week of May 2005 stated that due to poverty and unemployment people are committing suicides as such in order to save Pakistan the people would have to come out on the roads for their rights. He is professionally a judge. He was âpleasedâ in signing an order that Ministry of Defence and organizations under it were not under the ambit of Federal Ombudsman. How a pious man particularly a Judge can be âpleasedâ in closing the doors of cheap justice to common man and depriving them their basic rights of raising complaints particularly against an organization which is alive on the repeated financial injections from the treasury. As the man on Presidentâs chair was not a âpublic spiritedâ person, incidentally the man sitting on ombudsman chair then also showed himself as not being public spirited. He accepted this order and stopped entertaining complaints against PIA. Since 1983 in each and every complaint the very first paragraph in defence from PIA invariably used to be that the complaint was out of jurisdiction of Ombudsman but for about 15 years each âmanâ sitting on ombudsman chair always ignored this objection.
7. God blessed quality of public spirit is not restricted merely to judges or bureaucrats. 15 years back I applied an arms licence separately both to Federal Interior Ministry and Sindh Home Department with a view perhaps from one I may be successful. Both in writing conveyed me their approvals advising to submit proper application Forms which I did. Both gave me a date for collection of my ready licence. In case of Interior Ministry Licence was not ready on due date. They asked to come in a week to repeat the same. In the meantime Government banned issuance of new licences and I was finally refused. In case of Sindh Home Department before the due date of collection this ban was imposed so this licence was also refused.
8. Concerning Federal Interior Ministry I raised the issue with the Federal Ombudsman who was a âJudgeâ. Interior Ministry submitted the government had imposed ban. I argued that it was act of mal administration of Interior Ministry that it did not make ready my licence by due date on which date there was no ban at all. I further submitted figures taken from press reports that even after the ban how many liences had been issued to others. The Federal Ombudsman agreed to submissions of Interior Ministry and thus since about 12-13 years my money is locked with the Ministry.
9. Concerning Sindh Home Department I raised the issue with Sindh Ombudsman who then was not a judge but a bureaucrat. Sindh Home Department submitted the same argument that government had placed the ban. The man sitting on Sindh Ombudsman chair was a âbureaucratâ which category is generally believed as the stone heart. However, he was from the blessed category. His decision does not need to be taken from the view that he provided me relief but needs to be seen how he interpreted the rules on the general belief that the rules were for good of the people. He based his Decision on the principle that issuance of arms licence book was just a formality. He observed that by giving written approval to this citizen and accepting application form with fee the Sindh Home Department in fact had officially recognized that the citizen was of a good character and does merit for holding a licence. The approval in itself had given an entitlement to him to have a licence. The main thing is scrutiny of citizen and finding him entitled. Once fee had been accepted from him he was in fact a licence holder. It was just a matter of issuance of a book to him and ban does not apply to him.
10. Lot of comments have recently been bade that so called Section Officers mostly having no proper legal knowledge make and turn down decisions made by Ombudsman. A government department in 1995 charged about Rs. 400/- in excess from me. On my pointing out the Department in writing confirmed me that it was a mistake and refund was being made. I kept the Department reminding but no response. After spending several Rs. 400/- on correspondence in many years I took up the issue with its Headquarters. The same Department in writing this time informed me its record showed no excess having ever been charged hence no question of any refund. The Department further stated if I had a proof I should submit it. I submitted copy of their 5 years old letter to me confirming that excess charged was a mistake and refund was being made. The Department again became silent. Finally about 3 years back I complained to the concerned Ombudsman who was a âjudgeâ. The same Department which 5 years earlier was submitting to its Head Office that in its record there was no excess charged hence no question of refund, before the ombudsman changing its tongue submitted the refund was made same time (in 1995-96). The Judge ombudsman did not raise a logical question that in 2000 there was no record of excess charged then how in 2002 the Departmentâs memories knew the refund was made in 1995-96? The concerned Ombudsmanâs office procedure, as he himself says, is that once a department talks about providing relief the complaint file is not closed unless receipt of relief is not got confirmed from the complainant. The judge ombudsman did not get it confirmed from me if I had the refund. It was not the matter of Rs 400/-. It was the matter of principle and of my Rizq-e-Hilal. I filed as per law a Petition with the President of Pakistan which as per critics was dealt with by a so called Section Officer in the Ministry of Law generally possessing no legal knowledge. Of course His Excellency the President must had signed but it was surely prepared by a Section Officer. Fortunately the âmanâ sitting on the Section Officer chair was a God Blessed quality man. The Order passed based on his prepared Summary was that case was referred back to the Ombudsman with directive that the complainant citizen also has the same right to have the proof of refund made by the Department. If the Department did not produce this proof then refund may be arrangedâ. This is the natural justice, justice by a public spirited man who is from bureaucracy often labeled as stone heart. If the man is public spirited he can give you justice, if he is not he can deprive you from your basic right of filing a complaint as did Mr. Rafiq Tarar of brief case fame did. I can quotes dozens and dozens of similar examples
As far as his remarks that bureaucracy in President Secretariat decides the appeals to President areconcerned, it is a bit surprising that for the last about six months consistently a series of articles, comments and letters to editor are appearing wherein very sarcastically it is said that a âSection Officerâ in the President Secretariat decides such appeals. This, if my memories in this retirement age are not misguiding me this debate all started a year or so back when an ombudsman criticized that ombudsman decisions are turned down just by Section Officers sitting in the Ministry of Law having no proper knowledge and practical training of Law.
3. The true fact is it is not the rules, procedures or laws rather it is the âmanâ sitting on chair which matters and who delivers justice. It does not matter if the man on the chair is a superior judge, a junior grade magistrate, a bureaucrat additional secretary or a 17 grade so called Section Officer. What really matters is if this sitting man is blessed by God with public spirit or otherwise. If the man sitting on the chair is public spirited he would interpret the same rule or law from the universal school of thought that laws and procedures are made for the welfare and betterment of the people. If the sitting man is not blessed with this quality he would interpret the same law and rule from the school of thought that law and rules are made to control the people. And this blessed God given quality is not restricted to judges or bureaucracy or any particularly profession.
4. For example the P.O.I of 1982 Establishment of Federal Ombudsman stated that Ministry of Defence was out of ambit of Federal Ombudsman. But the âman sitting on the chair at that timeâ (Mr. Justice Sardar iqbal the first Ombudsman) interrupted this in the larger interest of common man. He interpreted it that he cannot entertain complaints against Ministry of Defence or organizations under it which related to countryâs defence, defence policies, defence relates sensitive issues but his jurisdiction was not barred at all as far as common manâs general complaints were concerned. He well entertained passengers complaints against PIA and provided relief to thousands. I myself twice or thrice got relief. He well entertained complaints against Combined Telecommunication Authority which is under Ministry of Defence dealing with public telephones in Azad Kashmir. The âmen on chairâ after retirement of first ombudsman fortunately were same blessed public spirited people and kept on entertaining complaints against PIA till late 1990s.
5. Electricity and Gas consumer can no longer file their complaints with Federal Ombudsman. The reason given is that there are now two independent authorities who monitor the working of these two utilities who will listen consumer complaints. For example in case of electricity consumer there is NEPRA authority where such complaints would be filed. If one goes to plain reading of NEPRA establishment order, it would be seen it only tells that a complaint can be filed with it against the licensee (Electricity company) but at no where it mentions that such complaints can ONLY be filed with it and not with Federal Ombudsman. Notwithstanding the above, however if the contention that Federal Ombudsman cannot not entertain complaints against gas or electricity companies due to reason above, then I feel the Federal Ombudsman can not entertain complaints of almost every type and his office should be closed. Reason being that today almost every Department for the last 3-4 years have established a sort of Complaints Center at higher level. For example, as such no complaint against PTCL should be entertained by Federal Ombudsman because an authority namely Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has established a special Cell to receive complaints against telecommunication companies. No complaint should as such be filed with Federal Ombudsman against OPF as Ministry of Manpower & Overseas Pakistanis have established a Cell in the Ministry to receive complaints from Overseas Pakistanis. No complaint as such should be filed with Banking Mohtasib was National Bank of Pakistan has established its own international ombudsman.
6. Came on the chair of the President of Pakistan the most pious, 5 times prayers offerer the famous Mr. Rafiq Ahmed Tarar who recently in the first week of May 2005 stated that due to poverty and unemployment people are committing suicides as such in order to save Pakistan the people would have to come out on the roads for their rights. He is professionally a judge. He was âpleasedâ in signing an order that Ministry of Defence and organizations under it were not under the ambit of Federal Ombudsman. How a pious man particularly a Judge can be âpleasedâ in closing the doors of cheap justice to common man and depriving them their basic rights of raising complaints particularly against an organization which is alive on the repeated financial injections from the treasury. As the man on Presidentâs chair was not a âpublic spiritedâ person, incidentally the man sitting on ombudsman chair then also showed himself as not being public spirited. He accepted this order and stopped entertaining complaints against PIA. Since 1983 in each and every complaint the very first paragraph in defence from PIA invariably used to be that the complaint was out of jurisdiction of Ombudsman but for about 15 years each âmanâ sitting on ombudsman chair always ignored this objection.
7. God blessed quality of public spirit is not restricted merely to judges or bureaucrats. 15 years back I applied an arms licence separately both to Federal Interior Ministry and Sindh Home Department with a view perhaps from one I may be successful. Both in writing conveyed me their approvals advising to submit proper application Forms which I did. Both gave me a date for collection of my ready licence. In case of Interior Ministry Licence was not ready on due date. They asked to come in a week to repeat the same. In the meantime Government banned issuance of new licences and I was finally refused. In case of Sindh Home Department before the due date of collection this ban was imposed so this licence was also refused.
8. Concerning Federal Interior Ministry I raised the issue with the Federal Ombudsman who was a âJudgeâ. Interior Ministry submitted the government had imposed ban. I argued that it was act of mal administration of Interior Ministry that it did not make ready my licence by due date on which date there was no ban at all. I further submitted figures taken from press reports that even after the ban how many liences had been issued to others. The Federal Ombudsman agreed to submissions of Interior Ministry and thus since about 12-13 years my money is locked with the Ministry.
9. Concerning Sindh Home Department I raised the issue with Sindh Ombudsman who then was not a judge but a bureaucrat. Sindh Home Department submitted the same argument that government had placed the ban. The man sitting on Sindh Ombudsman chair was a âbureaucratâ which category is generally believed as the stone heart. However, he was from the blessed category. His decision does not need to be taken from the view that he provided me relief but needs to be seen how he interpreted the rules on the general belief that the rules were for good of the people. He based his Decision on the principle that issuance of arms licence book was just a formality. He observed that by giving written approval to this citizen and accepting application form with fee the Sindh Home Department in fact had officially recognized that the citizen was of a good character and does merit for holding a licence. The approval in itself had given an entitlement to him to have a licence. The main thing is scrutiny of citizen and finding him entitled. Once fee had been accepted from him he was in fact a licence holder. It was just a matter of issuance of a book to him and ban does not apply to him.
10. Lot of comments have recently been bade that so called Section Officers mostly having no proper legal knowledge make and turn down decisions made by Ombudsman. A government department in 1995 charged about Rs. 400/- in excess from me. On my pointing out the Department in writing confirmed me that it was a mistake and refund was being made. I kept the Department reminding but no response. After spending several Rs. 400/- on correspondence in many years I took up the issue with its Headquarters. The same Department in writing this time informed me its record showed no excess having ever been charged hence no question of any refund. The Department further stated if I had a proof I should submit it. I submitted copy of their 5 years old letter to me confirming that excess charged was a mistake and refund was being made. The Department again became silent. Finally about 3 years back I complained to the concerned Ombudsman who was a âjudgeâ. The same Department which 5 years earlier was submitting to its Head Office that in its record there was no excess charged hence no question of refund, before the ombudsman changing its tongue submitted the refund was made same time (in 1995-96). The Judge ombudsman did not raise a logical question that in 2000 there was no record of excess charged then how in 2002 the Departmentâs memories knew the refund was made in 1995-96? The concerned Ombudsmanâs office procedure, as he himself says, is that once a department talks about providing relief the complaint file is not closed unless receipt of relief is not got confirmed from the complainant. The judge ombudsman did not get it confirmed from me if I had the refund. It was not the matter of Rs 400/-. It was the matter of principle and of my Rizq-e-Hilal. I filed as per law a Petition with the President of Pakistan which as per critics was dealt with by a so called Section Officer in the Ministry of Law generally possessing no legal knowledge. Of course His Excellency the President must had signed but it was surely prepared by a Section Officer. Fortunately the âmanâ sitting on the Section Officer chair was a God Blessed quality man. The Order passed based on his prepared Summary was that case was referred back to the Ombudsman with directive that the complainant citizen also has the same right to have the proof of refund made by the Department. If the Department did not produce this proof then refund may be arrangedâ. This is the natural justice, justice by a public spirited man who is from bureaucracy often labeled as stone heart. If the man is public spirited he can give you justice, if he is not he can deprive you from your basic right of filing a complaint as did Mr. Rafiq Tarar of brief case fame did. I can quotes dozens and dozens of similar examples
