2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

JAWAD HASSN, J.

Through the instant Intra Court Appeal, filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 22.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.21546-04/2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the orders dated 10.03.2017 and 22.03.2017.

2. Brief facts revealing from the instant Appeal are that the Appellant filed W.P. No.5845/2017 seeking decision of his application regarding Gaddi Nasheen/Sajjada Nasheen of the Holy Shrines of Baba Fareed Shakkar Gunj and Baba Baddar uddin Ishaq (the "Shrines") which was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2017 by this Court directing the Respondent No.2 for disposal of the Appellant's application. Subsequently, the Respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 10.03.2017 whereby Respondent No.4 has been appointed, as an interim arrangement, to perform the religious duties at the Shrines. Thereafter, the Responder No.2 passed impugned order dated 22.03.2017 on the application of the Appellant being not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned orders the Appellant filed W.P. No.21546-04/2017 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. Hence, this Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned orders are against law and facts and are liable to be set aside on the grounds that the learned Single Judge has not appreciate the fact that the Appellant is the most senior member of the family whereas the Respondent No.4 is most youngest in the family; that the Respondent No.4 has already been declared unsuitable by his father in his lifetime; that the Respondent No.4 has been appointed on the recommendations and under political influence of the Federal Ministry; that the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 is neither legal nor based on sound reasons, as such the same is liable to be set aside and the Appellant is entitled to be held as Gaddi Nasheen of the Shrines.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, there is a litigation pending between the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding permanent appointment of a Sajjada Nasheen to the Shrines. The Respondent No.2 for the temporary arrangements has appointed the Respondent No.4 as caretaker of the Shrines vide order dated 10.03.2017. The Respondent No.2 through the impugned order has withdrawn the administrative management of the Shrines from the Respondent No.3 and appointed the Respondent No.4 for the said purpose which was in exercise of his exclusive powers conferred upon him. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the matter relates to the discretion vested in the Respondent No.2 which seems to have been exercised on rational and reasonable grounds. After referring to the historical facts leading to the application, the Respondent No.2 has directed through the impugned order that the administrative management of the Shrines shall be taken care of by the Respondent No.4 as in the past the father of the Respondent No.4 has also been taking care of the affairs of the management of the Shrines.

6. Furthermore, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 clearly reflects that this Court only issued direction to the Respondent No.2 to decide the application dated 22.02.2017 of the Appellant and never restrained the Respondent No.2 to issue impugned order dated 10.03.2017 for temporary arrangement of affairs of the Shrines.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the appointment of the Respondent No.4 has been made under political influence of Federal Ministry is not instructive as there is nothing on record to prove this fact. The Appellant remained unsuccessful to prove that any political influence by the Federal Minister has been made for appointment of the Respondent No.4 by the Respondent No.2. This Court in Shaukat Ali v. Chairman Punjab Local Government Board (1999 PLC (C.S.) 637) held that admittedly, the petitioner is a civil servant. The order impugned in this petition has been passed by the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab who is the competent Authority. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said order has been passed at the instance of any politician or a Minister. He is the competent Departmental Authority who has passed this order. The assertion of the petitioner in Paragraph No.9(h)(ii) that the order has been passed under the dictation of a Provincial Minister, has categorically been denied in the comments, filed by the respondents Nos.1 and

2. It is also stated in the comments that the order has been passed due to the exigencies of service, in public interest, and on administrative grounds. In this view of the matter, when there is nothing on record to suggest to the contrary the order of transfer is presumed to have been passed in public interest due to the exigency of service. Furthermore, the Division Bench in Ghulam Murtaza v. Province of Sindh (2008 PLC (C.S.) 598) held as follows: "the documents placed on the record of this petition clearly prove that the orders were passed by the Secretary, Sindh Local Government Board, and there is no indication that any Private Secretary to any Minister of anybody else went on seeking illegal orders or he went on misusing his authority to influence his superior officers. In any case, even if such events actually took place, it is a settled principle of law that disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into by this Court in the proceedings of Constitutional petition, and that the petitioner has necessarily to approach the competent forum for the purpose of seeking of enquiry into the allegations as made by him in this petition."

8. We fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order which has been passed in line with the dictates of law and does not call for any interference by this Division Bench.

9. We do not see any illegality in the impugned orders; consequently, the Appeal in hand, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. MH/D-8/L Appeal dismissed.