2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Through this ICA, the Appellant has impugned order dated 5.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.27414/2016.

2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant after passing the matriculation exam applied for admission into General Nursing Training Course in the School of Nursing Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The Appellant joined the school on 7.1.2013. After completion of three years at the school, the Principal School of Nursing, Mayo Hospital, Lahore issued a provisional certificate with reference to the general nursing course attended. On 27.8.2016 the Appellant was issued a show cause notice alleging therein that she did not meet the merit for admission, hence her admission would be cancelled. She challenged the notice through W.P. No.27414/2016 before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 5.9.2016. Learned counsel argued that after the issuance of show cause notice, a notice for personal hearing was issued on 6.9.2016 to the Appellant. Learned counsel stated that in compliance thereof the Appellant appeared before the Inquiry Committee yet the Principal of School of Nursing, Mayo Hospital, Lahore is threatening to terminate the admission of the Appellant.

3. The learned Law Officer raised the objection that it is just a show cause notice in which the Appellant was asked to submit her reply and relevant documents. Learned Law Officer further argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as a show cause notice was challenged in the said writ petition. He also stated that the Inquiry Committee has forwarded its recommendations to the competent authority who has yet to decide the matter.

4. Heard and record perused.

5. Admittedly the case of the Appellant was heard and recommendations have been forwarded to the competent authority. In the first instance the writ petition was not maintainable and we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge. At this stage there is no adverse finding against the Appellant. She apprehends that the Respondents will take coercive action against her. This Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not act upon mere apprehension. Furthermore it is just a show-cause notice and no substantive right is being infringed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case titled Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Faisalabad and others v. Messrs Punjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (2007 PTD 1347) that tendency of by-passing the remedy provided under law, and resort to Constitutional jurisdiction of High court was deprecated. In view of the contents of the notice the Department only contemplates to take action against them. The petitioner instead of rushing to the High Court and consuming sufficient time should have submitted reply before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court. We have held in the judgment that such practice is to be deprecated because if merely on the basis of show-cause notice proceedings are started then in such position department would never be in a position to proceed with the cases particularly the recovery of revenue etc. Thus keeping in view the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that respondent had wrongly availed remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 5.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.27414/2016 is maintained. ZC/I-4/L Appeal dismissed.