2005 PLP 783 (MLD)

The petitioner is Incharge of Quaid-e-Azam Institute of Technology, Khanewal. The Institute was registered under the Provisions of Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984. The grievance being made out in this writ petition is that in violation of the provisions of the said law and the rules framed thereunder, the registration has been cancelled vide order dated 18-10-2004 (Annex-F).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed in violation of section 8 read with section 9 of the said Ordinance, inasmuch as, no directions were conveyed to the petitioner, the non-compliance whereof could have been made the basis for passing the order of cancellation under section 9 of the said Ordinance.

3. Learned A.A.-G. on the otherhand, contends that an appeal is provided for and under the present dispensation, E.D.O. is the Appellate Authority. However, with reference to the comments filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3, learned A.A.-G. is not in a position to controvert the factual aspects of the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 Board has taken the actions in view of the factum of said cancellation ordered by the respondents Nos.1 to 3.

4. Now in the comments, it has been stated that the Institution was registered while being run at Bismillah Plaza, Chowk Ahle Hadees, Khanewal. However, the Institution was shifted to Ismail Plaza, Chowk Sanglawala Khanewal and this premises was found to be insufficient and hazardous to the students and an Enquiry Committee was deputed which reported that the premises is inadequate and recommended cancellation of the registration which was accordingly cancelled.

5. Now the precise plea of the petitioner is that he has always been ready and willing to remove the defects or to comply with any direction which might have been issued to him by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the said matter but the further plea is that such directions were never conveyed.

6. Now section 8 of the said Ordinance is to the following effect:-- "

8. Inspection.

(1) The Registering Authority or an officer authorized by Government may inspect any institution and may give directions to require compliance with the conditions prescribed for registration. (2) The directions under subsection (1) shall be communicated to the incharge of the institution through an order and such person shall comply with the same within such time as may be specified therein". It will be seen that in the first instance, the Institution is to be inspected and then directions are to be communicated to the Incharge of the Institution through an order and time is to be specified therein for compliance for the same. Now section 9 (ii) provides for cancellation of registration of an Institution if the directions issued are not complied with.

7. To my mind, if some defects were found in the course of inspection then the said law definitely mandates that in the first instance specific directions are to be issued to the Incharge of the Institution, to be complied within a period of time to be specified and it would only be upon the failure of the incharge to comply with the said directions that registration could be cancelled. It is admitted position in the present case that no such directions were issued after the inspection of the premises by the Enquiry Committee as alleged in the comments and straightaway the registration was cancelled.

8. So far as the said objection of the learned A.A.-G. concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the same with the statement that an appeal was filed before the E.D.O. but he is not entertaining the same on the ground that he has no power to hear the appeal. In this state of affairs, the said remedy can hardly be termed as adequate rather even existing.

9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16/18-10-2004 (Annex-F) is declared to be without lawful authority and is accordingly set aside. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 shall in the first instance proceed strictly in accordance with section 8 of Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984 and convey the specific directions to the petitioner specifying the time period within which the same is to be complied with and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. No order as to costs. H.B.T./I-77/L Petition allowed.