2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Fawwad Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana Addl, A.-G (on Court s call). The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the Competent Authority transferred the petitioner vide order dated 22-3-2003. The respondents subsequently, had cancelled the aforesaid transfer order of the petitioner vide order dated 29-3-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a representation before the District Coordination Officer, who did not decide the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner secured the vested right after passing the order of transfer of the petitioner in his favour on 22-3-2003, therefore, respondents had to withdraw the same after issuing notice to the petitioner and providing proper hearing to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had accrued vested right on the basis of the said order. The respondents passed the impugned order without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hit by the principle of natural justice. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others (PLD 1987 SC 304). The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90). Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. The Enquiry Officer, War Risk Insurance (Sindh and Balochistan) Ministry of Commerce and another (1983 SCMR 1208). He further submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondents under the direction of the politicians, therefore, same is not valid in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon the Zahid Akhtar's case (PLD 1995 SC 530). He further urges that Competent Authority has passed the order under the direction of the superiors, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, he relied upon Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's case (PLD 1964 SC 829). He further submits that respondents are duty found to decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time.

2. Mr. Muhammad, Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that 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. In spite of bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give the direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourbale Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612). After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, respondents/public functionaries are duty bound to decide the representations of the citizens/their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism, within reasonable time as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268). In this view of the matter, let a copy of writ petition be sent to the Secretary concerned respondent No.1, who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law preferably within ten days after receiving the order of this Court, after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order and after verifying the record of the respondent. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 1 in his office on 21-3-2003 at 11-00 a.m. who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, in terms of the aforesaid direction preferably within ten days till 30-4-2003 either himself or send the same to the Competent Authority for its decision, who is also directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court, preferably within ten days till 30-4-2003. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within stipulated period. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No. 1, for necessary action and compliance. He is also directed to send a copy of this writ petition and order to the Chief Secretary of the Province, who is directed to look into the matter as to what is happening in the Government Departments under his control, that the public functionaries are taking the law in their hands and pass the order in violation of the law under the direction of the politicians. In case this practice will continue then the whole system will collapse then the system of trichotomy prescribed in our Constitution will be destroyed. Consequently, chaos would be created in the country which would have bring abnormal situation in the country. It is better and appropriate to take measures at the initial stage so that every organ of the State should function within its own sphere which is condition precedent to save the nation and country to compete the developed countries. It is pertinent to mention here that law is for the law-abiding citizens are prescribed by Al-Mighty Allah in the Holy Book in Surrah Baqra. He is directed to give directions to all the Secretaries of the Departments to act strictly in accordance with law and within the mandate of the Constitution by virtue of Article 5(2) of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case (PLD 1995 SC 530) and Ch. Zahur Ilahi MNA v. Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and 2 others (PLD 1975 SC 383). The respondent No. 1 is directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. S.M.B./M-1838/L Order accordingly.