2004 PLP 2108 (YLR)

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed representation before the Chief Executive and other sponsors of L.D.A. as alleged by the petitioner in para No.2 of the writ petition, but the respondents .did not give reply to this effect in reply of para No.2 of the writ petition and also the respondents did not decide the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the applications‑representations of citizens/their subordinates without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner has not filed any representation before the respondents, therefore, the assertion of learned counsel of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. In case, the contents of para. No.2 of the writ petition and para. No.2 of the written statement/report and parawise comments are put in juxtaposition, then it is crystal clear that the petitioner had filed a representation before the respondents, but the respondents had not taken stand in para.No.2 of the written statement that the petitioner had not filed representation before the respondents. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representations of their subordinates within reasonable time. It is settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by inaction of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore PLD 1994 Lahore

3. It is also settled principle of law that after addition of section 24‑A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representations of their subordinates without fear, favour, nepotism and within reasonable time and section 24‑A newly‑added in General Clauses Act, has retrospective effect. Section 24‑A in the General Causes Act has been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments and held that public functionaries are duty bound to decide the representations of their subordinates with reasons:‑‑ "Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager Karachi" 1998 SCMR 2268 "Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer" 1998 SCMR 2419 Our Constitution , is based on trichotomy and according to the trichotomy, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to act in accordance with law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Zia‑ur Rehman s case" PLD 1973 SC 49 and "Mian Nawaz Sharif s case" PLD 1993 SC

473. The respondents have not decided the representation of the petitioner as mentioned above, therefore, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution, while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "H. M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others" PLD 1981 SC 612 and "Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano" 20003 SCMIZ 325.

6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Executive/Chairman and other sponsors of L.D.A. on 5‑4‑2004, who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within one month till 5‑5‑2004 after receiving the order of this Court either himself or send the same to competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.

7. The learned counsel of the respondents is directed to notify the order of this Court to the aforesaid Chief Executive/Chairman of the L.D.A. for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy "Dasti" on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./M‑204/L Order accordingly.