2000 PLP 1046 (SCMR)

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.

We propose to dispose of abovementioned three petitions for leave to appeal by a consolidated judgment as the questions of law and facts. arising in these petitions are similar. These petitions are filed against two separate judgments of a learned I.-C.A. Bench of Lahore High Court, dated 30-5-1995 whereby I.-C.As. Nos.435, 359, 361, 363, 385, 386, 424, 508, 660 of 1993, 19, 69 and 137 of 1994 were disposed of. To understand the controversy arising in these petitions, it is necessary to refer the following background. A learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court noticed in some daily newspapers irregular allotments of residential plots to different persons in the Province of Punjab and taking suo motu notice of the news item, the learned Single Judge issued notice to Advocate-General, Punjab, to appear in Court and furnish details of allotments of commercial/residential plots by the then Chief Minister of Punjab during his tenure of office. It appears that on 2$-7-1993 the Advocate-General furnished certain information in Court whereupon, the learned Judge decided to issue notice to Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo and directed that the proceedings will be treated in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Constitution') read with Article 2A of the Constitution, the Quetta Declaration of Chief Justices' Conference on Public Interest Litigation. Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution and sections 4 and 5 of Shariah Laws. In view of the direction of the learned Judge, the case was registered as Writ Petition No.7459 of 1993. It appears that one of the allottees of a plot Mst. Shehnaz Begum challenged the suo motu jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge in Intro-Court Appeal which was registered as I.-C.A. No.361 of 1993 which was admitted to regular hearing by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court. The learned Division Bench while admitted that said I.-C.A. suspended the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 28-7-1993. At this stage, it appears, that Mr. Habib Wahab-ul-Khairi: Advocate, who is petitioner in C, p No. 1277 of 1997. was allowed to be impleaded as a party at his own request to assist the Court. While conducting suo motu proceedings in Writ Petition No.7459 of 1993 the learned Single Judge noticed serious alleged irregularities in maintaining the utilization of Federal Baitul Maal Funds. As this part of the proceedings had no nexus with the earlier proceedings which were initiated by the learned Single Judge to ascertain the irregular allotment of plots in the Province of Punjab, the proceedings relating to mismanagement of Federal Baitul Maal Funds was directed to be registered separately as suo motu Writ Petition No.9781 of 1993. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of mismanagement of Federal Baitul Maal Funds in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.9781 of 1993 became the subject-matter of 2 I.-C.As. Nos.435 and 455 of 1993 which were finally disposed of by the learned Division Bench through order, dated 30-5-1994. In respect of the proceedings initiated by the learned Single Judge relating to allotment of plots in the Province of Punjab and Federal Capital Territory, the learned Single Judge issued notice to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Prime Minister Mohtarrna Benazir Bhotto, Caretaker Prime Minister Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif to appear personally or through counsel to explain their respective position. The suo motu proceedings in respect of irregular allotment of land in the Federal Capital Territory was directed to be registered by the learned Single Judge as Suo Motu Writ Petition No.8623 of 1993. The learned Single Judge finally decided the controversy relating to irregular allotment of plots in the Federal Capital Territory on 19-9-1993 which was assailed in I.C.A. No.660 of'1993 filed by Capital Development Authority (CDA) and I.C.A. No.69 of 1994 field by a private allotted of the plot, namely, Javed Iqbal. Number of other I.C.As. were filed by the persons who felt aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered in writ petitions relating to alleged irregular allotment of plots and mismanagement of Federal Baitul Maal Funds. From the facts which are alleged in the abovementioned three writ petitions, it is quite clear that the learned Single Judge in suo motu proceedings took cognizance of the alleged irregular allotment of plots in the Province of Punjab by respective Chief Ministers, irregular allotment of residential plots in the Federal Capital Territory by different Prime Ministers during their respective tenure including the caretaker Prime Ministers and mismanagement of Federal Baitul Maal Funds by the Chief Ministers and the Prime Ministers of the country during their respective tenure in the office. The learned I.C.A. Bench which heard all these matters together through two separate judgments came to the conclusion that in so far exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge under Article 199 of the Constitution was concerned, such jurisdiction was not available to the learned Judge, and therefore, the order passed by him in the exercise of suo Motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was declared wholly without jurisdiction and consequently the entire proceedings were quashed. The learned I.C.A. Bench however, while quashing the above proceedings, noticed that besides suo motu proceedings started by the learned Single Judge, there were other private individuals who had challenged the action of the Government in so far the allotment of land in Province of Punjab and Federal Capital Territory was concerned and these writ petitions could not have been decided without hearing the petitioners as well as other parties who were arrayed therein as respondents. Accordingly the learned I.-C.A. Bench while quashing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution directed that in so far the writ petitions filed by individuals were concerned they should be dealt with in accordance with law and disposed of after hearing the parties concerned. These orders have been challenged by the petitioners in the abovementioned petitions. We have heard Mr. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in C. Ps. 690-L and 691-L of, 1992 which have been filed on behalf of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the abovementioned two petitions contended that the learned I.C.A Bench having held that suo motu jurisdiction did not exist in the learned Single Judge under Article 199 of the Constitution should have quashed the proceedings and left the matter there. It is contended that after having reached the conclusion that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to take up the cases in exercise of his suo motu powers, the Hon'ble I. C. A. Bench, should not have remanded the case to the learned Single Judge for decision in accordance with law. , Mr. Habib Wahabul Khairi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C. P. No. 1277 of 1997, on the other hand contends that in so far the order passed by I.-C.A. Bench on 30-5-1994 is concerned, he is only aggrieved to the extent that the writ petition filed by him before the High Court have not been disposed of and the same are pending since 1993. The learned counsel states that in case these petitions are ordered to be disposed of expeditiously, he will be satisfied. After hearing Mr. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, the learned counsel for petitioner in C.Ps. 690-L, 691-L of 1994 and the learned counsel for petitioners in C.P.1277 of 1997, we are of the view that no ground is made out for interference with the order of .learned I.-C. A. Bench. It is true that in the order passed by the learned I.-C.A. Bench, it has been held that the learned Single Judge had no suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and therefore, the proceedings initiated by him in exercise of his power under Article 199 of the Constitution in .respect of the alleged illegal allotment of plots as well as mismanagement of Federal Baitul Maal Funds, were wholly without jurisdiction and were accordingly quashed. It is, however, pointed out by Mr. Habib Wahabul Khairi that after he was made party in suo motu writ petition on which the learned Judge had taken notice of the alleged irregularities in allotment of plots in the Province of Punjab and Federal Capital Territory, he had filed following writ petitions which are awaiting hearing in that Court:-- (1) AL-Jehad Trust and others (W.P. No.7459 of 1993); (2) Al-Jehad Trsut v. Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo (W.P.No. 8622 of 1993); (3) Al-Jehad Trust v. Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo . (W.P. No.8623 of 1993). (4) Al-Jehad Trust v. Ghulam Asghar Malik . (W.P. No. 8624 of 1993) The learned counsel for the petitioner in C.Ps. 690-L and 691-L of 1994 very vehemently contends that after decision by the I.-C.A. Bench that suo Motu jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge was not available to him, the learned Judges should not have remanded the case for hearing to the learned Single Judge. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in C.Ps. 690-L and 691-L of 1994. It is no doubt true that the learned I.-C.A. Bench held that the learned Single Judge had no suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution but regarding writ petitions mentioned above filed by Al-Jehad Trust, they were to be disposed of after hearing the petitioners and respondents in the cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner in C. Ps. 690-L and 691-L of 1994 also contended that by remand of the abovementioned petitions filed by Al-Jehad Trust, his client, petitioner in C.Ps. 690-L and 691-L of 1994, has specifically been singled out. This contention of the learned counsel does not appear robe correct as from the copies of writ petitions which are mentioned above, it is quite clear that besides the petitioner there were other persons C who were named as respondents in the cases and that they were issued notices by the learned Single Judge to show cause and explain the irregularities in the allotment of plots in the Province of Punjab and Federal Capital Territory. The disposal of these petition having not taken place in accordance with law, the learned I.-C.A. Bench was fully justified in remanding the cases to the learned Single Judge for decision after hearing, the parties in accordance with law. No case for interference with the judgment of L-C.A. Bench is made out. Civil Petitions Nos.690-L and 691-L of 1994 are accordingly dismissed. We' have already stated that in so far C.P. 1277 of 1997 is concerned, the only grievance of Mr. Habib Wahabul Khairi is that writ petitions filed before the Lahore High Court, which are pending since 1993 have not been disposed of, and if they are directed to be disposed of expeditiously, he, will be satisfied. The prayer made by Mr. Habib Wahabul Khairi appears to be reasonable and we, accordingly, observe that the High court will make every effort to dispose of abovementioned writ petitions within a period of three months from today. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed and leave is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-25/S Petitions dismissed.