2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Malik Abdul Aziz for Petitioner. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority and is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that respondents had reinstated Mst. Mussarat Kausar and Mst. Safia Begum mentioned in the order dated 6-3-2003 at Sr.Nos.3 and

4. He further submits that the respondents extended tire period of suspension vide order dated 5-0-2003 without justification. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a presentation/appeal before the respondents, who did not decide the same till date. He further submits it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representation/appeals of citizens/their subordinates without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.

2. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl: Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

4. The petitioner has challenged the vires of suspension of impugned order through this Constitutional petition which is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer-in-Chief, Pakistan Army G.H.Q and another" (1985 SCMR 63). It is admitted fact that the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Article 212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Art, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1PLD 1980 SC 22). The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court was followed by Full Bench of Karachi High Court in "Abdul Bari v. Government of the Pakistan and others." (PLD 1981 Karachi 290). The Full Bench of this Court has also considered all the points and followed the A aforesaid judgment in "Muzaffar Hussain's case" (2002 PLC (C.S.) 442). It is also settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable qua the intermediate stages as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Wahab's case (PLD 1989 SC 508). In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition to the extent of vires of suspension of order, is not maintainable. In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, this Court has ample powers to give direction to the public functionaries to act strictly in accordance with law while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Superior Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612).

5. In this view of the matter, let copy of writ petition be sent to respondent, who is directed to decide the representation/appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order, preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court, in case the petitioner has already filed representation/appeal before him and he has not passed any order on the same till date. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent in his office at 11-00 a.m. on 8-7-2003, who is directed either to decide the representation/appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law himself or send the same to the competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in the terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.

6. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition alongwith all the annexes to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-689/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.