2004 PLP 1133 (MLD)

Saeed Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1974 SC 151; Aman Ullah Khan's case PLD 1990 SC 1092 ref. Shezada Mazhar for Petitioner. Muhammad Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Respondents The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner got admission in the respondent‑College in the subject of Textile Designing for the Session 1997‑98 under the Self‑Finance Scheme. According to the Self‑Finance Scheme, the petitioner has to deposit Rs.2,00,

000. The petitioner was involved subsequently in a case. The petitioner's admission was terminated by the respondent‑College, The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.1839 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 30‑3‑2000 and the respondent‑College was directed to look into the matter under parental jurisdiction to save the career of the petitioner. The respondent did exercise parental jurisdiction and upheld the earlier order of termination of admission of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No.20550 of 2000, which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 14‑6‑2001. Thereafter the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No.9202 of 2002 with the prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to return the amount secured by the respondent College at the time of admission of the petitioner, from the petitioner in the Institution, which was disposed of by this Court and the respondents were directed to look into the matter under Parental jurisdiction. The respondents did not agree with the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition with the following prayer:‑‑ "Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may kindly issue orders to the respondent to make the payment of Rs.200,000 to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner remained in the college only for eight months. Thereafter the petitioner's admission was struck off by the respondent‑College, therefore, the respondent‑College is duty bound to return the said amount to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent‑College had given admission to one Arfan Shah after securing Rs.50,000 only, whose admission was also cancelled by the respondent‑College. The respondent College did not initiate any proceedings to recover the remaining amount from Arfan Shah, therefore, action of the respondent‑College is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that it is contract based on Prospectus, therefore, Constitutional petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon M.H. Abide v. State Life Insurance Corporation (1990 MLD 563).

3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that petitioner did not mention a single word about Arfan Shah in the contents of the writ petition. He further submits that action of the respondent‑college is in accordance with the prospect and the petitioner has given affidavit to abide by the rules prescribed in the Prospectus, therefore, petitioner is not entitled any refund of the amount, which was received by the respondents under Self‑Finance Scheme at the time of giving admission to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner wants enforcement of a contract, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.

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

5. The contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that Constitutional petition is not maintainable, has no force. The Constitutional petition is maintainable as the Calendar‑Prospectus issued by the respondent‑College has a statutory force. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant rules to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ "An equally high merit in the test is required to qualify for admission as a full‑fee paying/self‑finance student. The full tuition fee for the length of the course for Fine Art and Design is Rs.200,000.00 and Rs.2,50,000.00 for Architecture. These fees will be non‑refundable in the case of a student disqualified in First or Second year, expelled or the voluntarily discontinuation of the course on part of student for whatever reasons at any stage of his/her studies." Mere reading of the aforesaid rule of the Prospectus, petitioner is not entitled any relief as the action of the respondent‑College is in accordance with the rules prescribed by the respondent‑College in the Prospectus. It is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to show qua the maintainability of the Constitutional petition that action of the respondent is not in consonance with the rules and regulations of the respondent -College, which in the present case, learned counsel of the petitioner, failed to point out that action of the respondent‑College is in derogation of the rules and regulations of the respondent‑College therefore. Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (PLD 1984 SC 433). The second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that action of the respondent‑College is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution, the petitioner has not mentioned a single word about Arfan Shah in the contents of the writ petition. It is settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Murad Begum etc. v. Muhammad Rafique etc. (PLD 1974 SC 322). Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eye of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑ Saeed Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) Aman Ullah Khan's case (PLD 1990 SC 1092) In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. M.A.W./R‑18/L Petition dismissed.