1997 PLP 866 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R.10‑‑‑Allotment of plots to Judges of High Court‑‑‑Ten Judges of High Court were already impleaded while 18 more were sought to be impleaded‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Allotment of plots to Judges was not gratuitous but they paid price for those plots‑‑Where Government intended to ameliorate lot of judiciary for allowing them piece of land for building house on it, it did not commit mortal sin‑‑‑In order to insulate freedom from want and preserve independence of judiciary for performance of its onerous task of administration of justice, allotment of plots to them was a step in right direction‑‑‑Federation must take all rightful steps to keep judiciary above water‑‑‑Such step would ensure freedom of judiciary and enhance its respect and prestige‑‑‑Survival of institution of judiciary could be safely equated with the survival of the country and its members‑‑‑No writ could be issued by High Court against its Judges‑‑‑Allotment of plots out of quota reserved for Judges and also from the quota of Chief Minister to a few of them were not questionable pro bono publico at the instance of petitioner‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I R.10‑‑‑Residential plots‑‑‑Allotment in favour of Judges of High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner during hearing of Constitutional petition made application for adding names of 18 more Judges‑‑‑Petitioner during course of arguments objected to hearing of petition by Judge of the High Court for being sought to be included in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Judge of High Court found no bar in law nor did he feel any bar on his conscience to hear and decide Constitutional petition fairly on merits‑‑‑Except for Additional Judges of High Court appointed during pendency of Constitutional petition, almost all the Judges of High Court were either already parties to petition or were sought to be impleaded in application under O. I, R. 10, C. P. C. ‑‑‑There was thus, no alternative for the Judge except to hear Constitutional petition‑‑‑Objection raised by petitioner to Judge's hearing Constitutional petition were, thus, not well‑founded. The President Referring Authority v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali PLD 1971 SC 585 ref. Petitioner in person. A.R. Arshad Malik for Respondent No.

12. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1994 A few residential plots in M.A. Johar Town of the size of one kanal each on the recommendation of Honourable, the Chief Justice were formally allotted to the members of the superior judiciary by the L.D.A. out of a quota reserved for them. A few of the Judges were also allotted plots out of a quota reserved for the Chief Minister. A news flash in local daily brought out the names of a few Judges of this Court to whom the plots were allotted in the past. It evoked criticism from a member of the legal Maternity. He has instituted a petition in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for eliciting necessary information regarding the allotments of plots to the Judges of this Court and if the plots were found to be illegally allotted, then for initiating of appropriate measures in this behalf. Previously, the writ petition was on the cause list of my learned brother Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. He called for report from the L.D.A. It provided the necessary information to the Court. The writ petition was heard on number of dates by my brother. Legal Advisor of L.D.A was also called to appear. Petitioner requested for filing the rejoinder. He was allowed to do it within a week. Eventually, on 13‑11‑1994, the writ petition was placed on the cause list of my learned brother Muhammad Arif, J. For personal reasons, he declined to hear it and referred the matter to Honourable, the Chief Justice. He directed me to hear it. Ten Judges were made respondents to the writ petition. Some have retired. One of them was now a Judge of the Supreme Court. The former Chief Justice was also a party‑respondent to the writ petition. On 2‑11‑1994, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition under order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., for addition of 18 more Judges of this Court as respondents to the writ petition. My name was also included in the list. When the writ petition came up for hearing, the petitioner at the very outset objected to its hearing by me. It was asserted that since I was also allotted a plot in M.A. Johar Town Scheme, I was precluded to hear the writ petition. Almost while Court was made party to the writ petition. I vividly remember, in days of Honourable former Chief Justice, Mian Mehboob Ahmad, the Judges in the Court were allotted plots of one Kanal each in M.A. Johar Town Scheme by the L.D.A. The allotments were made out of the quota reserved for superior judiciary in the aforesaid Scheme. Allotments were made for accommodating the housing requirements of the members of the superior judiciary. Allotments of plots to them were not gratuitous. They paid price for the plots. There was no quid pro quo from them. It neither affected independence of judiciary nor its impartiality. In the past also, the members of superior judiciary were allotted plots in Islamabad for construction of houses by them. Hon'ble members of legal fraternity had also a share in it. Advocates of the Supreme Court were also accommodated in this behalf. I do not propose to compare the case of the superior judiciary with the members of legal fraternity of allotment of State largesse. Nonetheless, if the Government of the day intended to ameliorate the lot of the judiciary for allowing them a piece of land for building a house on it, it did not commit a mortal sin. On the other hand, in order to insulate freedom from want and preserve independence of the judiciary for performance of its onerous task of administration of justice, it was step in the right direction. The Federation must take all rightful steps to keep the judiciary above water. It shall ensure its freedom and enhance its respect and prestige also. In my humble opinion, the survival of the institution of judiciary could be safely equated with the survival of the country itself. Petitioner himself expressed respects for the judiciary of the country and its members. Nonetheless, it was oblique. It was really disturbing to hear all that was said by the petitioner at the hearing of the writ petition. However, in the interest of fair hearing and clear need for transparency of the judicial institution itself, it was heard without a ruffle. Be that as it may, no writ could issue by the Court against its Judges 'therefore, allotments of plots out of a quota reserved for them and also the Chief Minister out of his quota to a few of them were not questionable pro bono publico at the instance of the petitioner. Neither the L.D.A. nor the act of this Court could be held wrong. As far hearing of the writ petition by me on account of allotment of a plot, I could find no bar in law nor did I feel any bar on my conscience to hear and decide the writ petition fairly on its merits. Except for the Additional Judges of this Court appointed recently, almost all the Judges of the Court were either already parties to the writ petition or were sought to be impleaded in the application under Order I, Rule 10, Civil P.C. My name was included in the' Judges sought to be impleaded in the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. In this circumstance also, there was no alternative for me except to hear this writ petition. In hearing it, I was fortified by my observations in the case of The President‑Referring Authority v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali (PLD 1971 SC 585). Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner to my hearing of the writ petition was not well‑grounded. As a result of the above, writ petition is dismissed in limine. A.A/S‑92/1????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Writ petition dismissed.