2002 PLP 1533 (MLD)

(i) The land in question was leased out by respondent No.2 to Pakistan Social Welfare Organization in sixties for the construction of shops. (ii) Pakistan Social Welfare Organization handed over the shops to respondent No.3 in the year 1967. (iii) The aforesaid exchange was approved by respondent No.2 vide Resolution No. 160, dated 5‑3‑1970. (iv) Respondent No.2 renewed the lease in favour of respondent No.3 vide agreements dated 25‑7‑1981 and 8‑7‑1984 with the condition that respondent No.3 was bound not to sublet the shops to any other persons. (v) Respondent No.3 subletted the shops in question to the petitioners. (vi) The respondent No.2 cancelled the lease of respondent No.3 on 20‑3‑1995 on the ground of subletting the shops in question to the petitioners. (vii) The petitioners were also directed to hand over possession to respondent No.2. (viii)The respondent No.3 filed a suit against respondent No.2 which had been withdrawn by respondent No.3 as the respondent No.2 had recalled the order, dated 20‑3‑1995 vide order, dated 30‑5‑1996. The petitioners challenged the order of respondent No. 2, dated 30‑5‑1996 before respondent No. l who accepted the appeal of petitioners vide order, dated 28‑2‑1997. Respondent No.3 being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.8451 of 1997 which was dismissed as not pressed on 1‑10‑1998 in the following terms:‑‑ "Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, Magistrate 1st Class present in Court states that District Magistrate, Mandi Bahauddin will have no objection to the carrying on business and to receive the rent by petitioners. In this view of the matter learned counsel of the petitioners does not press this petition as having become fructified. " (ix) The petitioner being aggrieved filed Intra‑Court Appeal No. 1022 of 1998 which was dismissed in the following terms:‑‑ "It is clear from the operative portion of the judgment as contained in para. No.2 of the writ petition that the writ petition had been dismissed as having not been pressed, therefore, this appeal is not competent." (x) The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.7554 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 2‑5‑2000. Copy of the writ petition was sent to respondent No.4. who was directed either to decide the application of the petitioners himself or constitute a Committee to probe into the matter and decide the application of the petitioners in accordance with law after providing personal hearing to the petitioners within two months. The respondent No.4 dismissal the application of the petitioners vide impugned order, dated 28‑6‑2000 in the following terms:‑‑

6. I have gone through the record at length and given cautious and careful consideration to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners had miserably failed to prove his contention that the orders of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.8451 of 1997 are not intact. This is entirely contrary to the reality in view of the clear/unambiguous text of the judgment of Honourable High .Court dated 1‑10‑1998 and report sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioners are also defaulters in payment of rent to the ' SHATIK' for the last 3 to 4 years. This being so, the petition is rejected being devoid of legal force/cogent ground." In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same was passed by respondent without applying his independent mind. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizen without fear, favour and nepotism as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. It is also settled proposition of law that it is the duty and obligations of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the parties with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Services case (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled proposition of law that nobody should be? penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in PLD 1994 Lahore 3. (Ahmad Latif Qureshi case). Since the impugned order did not contain any reason and decided by respondent No.4 in a summary manner without applying his independent mind, therefore, the same is set aside. Meaning thereby the application filed by the petitioners before respondent No.4 shall be deemed to be pending adjudication who is directed to decide the application of the petitioners afresh on merits after providing proper hearing to all the concerned with two months. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.4 on 18‑7‑2001 at 11‑00 a.m. who is directed to decide the same within two months till 18‑9‑2001. He is also directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The respondents are restrained to take any action against the petitioners till the aforesaid date. In case the respondent No.4 decides the application of the petitioners before the said date then the respondents are restrained to take action till the decision of respondent No.4. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has no force on the following reasons:‑‑ (i) The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order of respondent No.4 through this constitutional petition; (ii) Petitioners have no alternate remedy against the impugned order. (iii) The order, dated 2‑5‑2000 has been accepted by respondents Nos.2 to 3, same is final between the parties as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145). In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. H.B.T./M‑1164/L ??????