2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.

The petitioner has preferred this Constitutional Petition seeking following relief:

"It is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for record and proceedings of the petitioner's. case and after perusal of the same and hearing the parties concerned, set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 8-9-2003. and the appeal order dated 3-11-2003 passed by the respondents, holding the same to be illegal, unfair, unjustified, mala fide, void ab initio and without lawful authority and reinstate the petitioner in service with all back benefits and `A' Grade annual increments, including his pay seniority, length of service etc." Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the Habib Bank Limited, who was served with a show-cause notice, as consequence thereof the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. On the basis of the enquiry report after receipt of reply and personal hearing, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 8-9-2003. He proceeded to file a Departmental Appeal against the order of dismissal, which was also dismissed by order dated 3-11-2003. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned counsel for the respondents. It is primarily contended on behalf of the respondents that the petition as filed is not maintainable in law as the Habib Bank Limited after privatization has no concern with the affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent for maintainability of Constitutional Petition, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. In reply to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has attempted to argue that the Bank was established under the statute of Federation and the petitioner was regular employee of the Bank, therefore, the petition is maintainable. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan provides an adequate remedy when no alternative remedy is available. High Court can make an order directing a person performing within territorial jurisdiction of the Court functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do so or to do anything which is required by law to do so or declare that any act done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions in connection with .the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the case of Khalid Mehmood v. Habib Bank Limited and others 2005 MLD 1798, the dictum laid down is reproduced herein below:-- "It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not sought any relief against the respondent No.1, whereas respondents-Bank has privatized, therefore, respondents-Bank has no concern with affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent qua the maintainability of the constitutional petition in terms of Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by law lay down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zainul Abidin v. Multan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Multan PLD 1966 SC

445. The afore-said proposition of law is also supported by the judgments laid down in the cases of Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed v. United Bank Ltd. And others PLD 1987 Pesh. 144, 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1355 and 2001 PLC (C.S.) 207." There is no cavil with the fact that after privatization of the Habib Bank Limited, it is run by a private party, therefore, the Bank has no concern with the affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent for maintainability of Constitutional Petition. In view of what has been discussed above, without touching the merits of the case, we are of the view that the instant petition is not maintainable in law, which is dismissed accordingly. The petition was dismissed by- a short order dated 2-4-2008, these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./A-106/K Petition dismissed: