1995 PLP 157 (SCMR)

WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Ismail and yfour others, through leave of the Court, call in question the judgment dated 14‑1‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby their Writ Petition No. 146/92 against the order dated 23‑5‑1991 of the District Zakat Committee removing Muhammad Ismail appellant from the office of Chairman, Zakat and Ushr Committee, was dismissed. The leave granting order is as follows:‑ "Leave to appeal is granted because it appears that the District Ushr and Zakat Committee proceeded to dispose of the grievance against the petitioners as on a pending appeal, in spite of the provision made in first proviso to rule 17 of the Punjab Local and the Tehsil/Sub Divisional Zakat and Ushr Committees (Constitution) Rules, 1979. In fact after the disposal of appeal in terms of that proviso, the proceedings should have been started and concluded under the Punjab Tehsil, Sub‑Divisional and Local Committees (Removal of Chairman and Members) Rules, 1981. The impugned order is suspended. The petitioners shall continue to work as Chairman and Members, as the case may be. This shall not, however, preclude the District Committee from proceeding afresh in the matter in accordance with rules." The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that in the public meeting organized by District Ushr and Zakat Committee, Multan (respondent No. 1 herein) on 17‑4‑1989,.Muhammad Ismail appellant No. 1 herein, was elected as Chairman, Ushr and Zakaf Committee for Chak No. 321/W.B., District Lodhran and . appellants 2 to 5 as Members and the constitution of the Committee was published in the Gazette on 12‑7-1989. Muhammad Khalil respondent No. 6 herein, filed an appeal under section 18(9) of Ordinance NOXVIII of 1980 before the District Ushr and Zakat Committee alleging that in fact he had been elected as Chairman in the gathering referred to above and that the appellant in connivance with the Social Welfare Officer, Lodhran tampered' with the result. The appeal Committee comprising of Zubair Farooq and Kanwar Muhammad Idrees Khan, members of the District Zakat Committee, heard the grievance of the respondent. There was difference of opinion between them. The former agreed with the result already declared while the latter suggested that inquiry should be held in the wild allegations made by the appellant/respondent No.

6. However, the office of the District Zakat Committee formed the view that the appeal stood dismissed. On 29‑8‑1989, respondent No. 6 submitted another application to the Chairman, District Zakat Committee for initiation of inquiry upon which Rao Zafar Iqbal and others, Members of the Zakat Committee were entrusted with the task of inquiry into the matter, who supported the charges levelled by respondent No.6. Appellant No. 1 filed a Writ Petition No. 1743/89 challenging the powers of the District Zakat Committee qua inquiry into the allegations of respondent No. 6 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 28‑4‑1991. On the acceptance of the appeal, appellant No. 1 was removed from the office of Chairman, Local Zakat Committee which led to the filing of another writ petition which too, was dismissed vide the impugned order. We have heard Mr. Talib Rizvi, Advocate, for the appellant, and have perused the record of the case. The appellants were found guilty of fraud and forgery and a proper inquiry held by the District Ushr and Zakat Committee on the appeal filed by Muhammad Khalil, respondent No. 6, which was essentially a finding of fact arrived at by the special forum and the High Court rightly declined to interfere in their writ jurisdiction. The appellants, before the institution of writ petition, had filed a civil suit praying for declaration and injunction and had been able to secure ad interim injunction and enjoyed the office so long as the temporary injunction remained in force but when it was withdrawn, they invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy us about any error of law, misreading/non‑reading of evidence in the impugned, judgment of the High Court and consequently by maintaining the same, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./M‑2060/S Appeal dismissed.