2021 PLP 442 (MLD)

Through this Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (the "Ordinance"), the Appellant has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.70599 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge (the "Impugned Order") whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant mainly contended that the impugned order is against law and facts; that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the real fact in its true perspective; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not taken into consideration the fact that fee challan for the year 2019 were not issued according to the prescribed criteria by the Respondent No.4; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has also not appreciated that the public functionaries / Respondent No.3 is bound to make sure implementation of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court; that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has been passed without application of mind therefore, it is liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned Law Officer appeared and vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and submitted that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the law, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Division Bench. He also prayed for dismissal of this Appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available.

5. The learned Single Judge in Chamber while disposing of the writ petition, passed order in the following manner: "The private schools as well as parents/students are obliged to abide by the directions of Hon'ble apex Court and shall facilitate the process of implementation of decision in its letter and spirit. DRA shall closely monitor the whole process in order to ensure strict compliance of decision of Hon'ble apex Court and observance of applicable law, rules and regulations. DRA shall also set up complaint cells to deal with future grievances of the parties if any".

6. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not taken into consideration the fact regarding fee issues etc and implementation of Hon'ble apex Court order, we have noted that in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge in Chamber while clarifying the issues raised in writ petitions, directed the Respondent No.3/the District Registering Authority to closely monitor the whole process for strict compliance of decision of the Hon'ble apex Court coupled with observance of applicable law, rules and regulations. The aforesaid Respondent was also directed to set-up complaint cells to deal with the future grievance of the parties. At this stage, if the Appellant has any grievance, he may approach the complaint cell constituted by the Respondent No.3 for redressal of his grievance. We see no reason or justification to interfere in the impugned order. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in case titled "Nabeel Akhtar Chaudhry and others v. Lahore Development Authority and 5 others" (2017 CLC 561).

7. Hence, the instant Intra Court Appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. SA/K-13/L Petition dismissed.