2002 PLP 127 (CLC)

M.A. Zafar for Petitioner. Malik Maqbool Elahi, A.‑G., Punjab. Sher Zaman, Dy. A.‑G. for Pakistan for Respondents. Malik A.M. Awan, A.A.‑G. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General after perusing the contents of writ petition and parawise comments submits that respondent No.1 refused to register the sale‑deed vide order, dated 13‑6‑2000. The petitioner has filed the writ petition against the aforesaid order, which is not maintainable as the petitioner has the following two remedies under the provision of Registration Act:‑‑ (i) The petitioner has right to file suit under section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908. (ii) Petitioner has right to file appeal before higher authority of respondent No.1 under section 72 of Registration Act. He further submits that the petitioner has filed writ petition simply to harass the respondents as investigation is pending in NAB and the matter is under investigation. He further submits that there is mere enquiry pending against Muhammad Anwar son‑in‑law of the petitioner as is evident from para. 'No.3 and ground "C" of the writ petition. He further submits that by virtue of section 23 of the NAB Ordinance, the impugned

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that learned Law Officer has wrongly read para. No.3 and ground "C" of the writ petition. There is no enquiry pending against the said Muhammad Anwar, son‑in‑law of the petitioner before NAB. He further submits that there is no order qua the enquiry against Muhammad Anwar. He further submits that enquiry is pending before Anti‑Corruption against the son -in‑law of the petitioner but the land in question is not a subject‑matter in that enquiry. He further submits that respondent No. i has passed order without applying his mind as is evident from the impugned order, dated 13‑6‑2001 of the respondent No.

1. He further submits that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.1 under the direction of Major Sajjad Awan is evident from impugned order passed which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure "E" at page No.36. He further submits that alternative remedy is not efficacious. Since the impugned order is without lawful authority, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

4. Learned counsel of the petitioner has argued that enquiry is pending against son‑in‑law of the petitioner before Anti‑Corruption Department; wherein respondent No.1 in his parawise comments has taken stand that some enquiry is pending and is under investigation before NAB as in reply of ground "B" of report and parawise comments. The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed by respondent No. 1 without applying his mind as the impugned order‑ does not contain reasons and did not consider the report of his subordinate. After addition of section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act, it is duty and obligation of the public functionary to redress the grievance of the citizens with reasons as per principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam, International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268. In this view of, the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has alternative remedy to agitate the vires of the impugned order by filing of civil suit or to file A appeal before the Higher Authority of respondent No.1 under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. It is settled principle of law that it is not absolute rule that in presence of alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. Since the order is passed by respondent No.1 in violation of mandatory provision of section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act and law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. Respondent No.1 did not attach a single document‑ Respondent No.1 under investigation, but this fact is not sufficient borne out that either the. case against the petitioner or his son- in‑law is pending before NAB as is evident from reply of para. ground "B" of the writ petition of respondent No.

1. The impugned order reveals that some case is pending against Anwar Khan, Patwari but the order did not further reveal that the land in question is owned by Anwar Khan, Patwari or not. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside. Since the order is set aside on technical ground, respondent No.1 is at liberty to decide the same afresh with reason after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including representative of I respondent No.2 strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the aforesaid observation of this Court. Thereafter, the parties are at liberty to avail proper remedy under the provision of Registration Act, 1908. H.B.T./A‑303/L Petition allowed.