2004 PLP 157 (CLD)

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed:‑‑ (i) That respondent No. 1 be ordered to direct respondent No.2 to forthwith alter its Memorandum and Articles according to the directive dated 24‑4‑1997. (ii) That respondent No. 1 be directed to supersede the present management of respondent No. 2 under section 10 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961 to ensure free and fair elections. . (iii) That respondent No. 1 be directed to order respondent No.2 to issue a fresh voters list for Northern Circle in accordance with the amended Articles of Association and Memorandum which in fact should be in consonance with the above‑referred directive. (iv) That pending the disposal of this writ petition elections of the Association may kindly be stayed. (v) Any other relief to which the petitioners are entitled in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to them in the interest of justice."

2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.2 to amend Memorandum and Articles of Association vide directive dated 24‑4‑1997 but respondent No.2 did not amend the Memorandum and Articles of Association in terms of the directive of respondent No.1. He further submits that respondent No.2 has issued an advertisement in the Press according td which every voter has been requested to furnish a copy of the receipt of the income‑tax return to the Association. The respondents had given the impression through the said advertisement that the directive of the Trade Organization was complied with. In fact respondent No.2 did not comply with the aforesaid directive dated 24‑4‑1997 and issued the public notice in violation of the said directive mala fide. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the Director Trade Organizations to hold elections fair, impartial in view of the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961. Respondent No. 1 failed to discharge his statutory duties, therefore, action of respondent No. 1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, respondent No.2 has no lawful authority to hold election. He further submits that respondents have issued a voters' list which is bogus, simply to benefit the present management. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is duty bound to hold the inquiry qua the genuineness of the voters' list but he did not discharge his statutory duty in accordance with law.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan, submits that petitioners have filed an application before respondent No. 1 which is at page 23 of the petition on 11‑9‑2003 which was decided by the Director vide order dated 13‑9‑2003 which is attached with the writ petition at page 11, therefore, writ petition is premature. He further submits that election schedule has been announced by the competent authority, therefore, this, Court has no jurisdiction to stop the election process while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. He further submits that petitioners have more. Than one alternative remedies under the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961. He further submits that respondent No.2 is private respondent, therefore, writ petition against private respondent is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel of respondent No.2 also adopted the arguments of the learned Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan. They further submit that the petitioners have alternative remedies under section 12 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961.

5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that the Director Organization decided the application of the petitioner on 13‑9‑2003 which does not contain any reason, therefore, order dated 13‑9‑2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

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

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the order of the Director Trade Organization dated 13‑9‑2003 through this Constitutional petition as is evident from the prayer clause of the writ petition which has already been reproduced above. The petitioners have alternative remedies in case the petitioners are not satisfied with the order of the Director of the Trade Organization dated 13‑9‑2003 under the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961. It is also admitted fact that the elections were held by respondent No.2 after 1997 and the petitioners or any other person had not challenged the same that respondent No.2 had conducted the elections in violation of the directive of respondent No. 1 dated 24‑4‑1997 as is evident from the contents of the writ petition. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the factual inquiry in Constitutional petition qua the voters' list as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan's case 1993 SCMR

618. It is also admitted fact that petitioners have more than one alternative remedies under the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC

246. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the election process once the election schedule has been announced as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Javaid Hashmi's case PLD 1989 SC

396. It is pertinent to mention here that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the petitioners were raised in the case of Mian Ijaz Iqbal and others v. Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and another PLD 1983 Lahore 1 and the same were rejected. For the reasons recorded in the reported judgment of Mian Ijaz Iqbal and others PLD 1983 Lahore 1 supra, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are well within their right to avail the proper remedy under the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, which of course will be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961. H.B.T./U‑59/L Petition dismissed.