2005 PLP 1116 (CLC)

Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236; Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462; Haji Saifullah's case PLD 1989 SC 166 and Kh. Muhammad Sharif's case PLD 1998 SC 725 ref. (d) Administration of justice‑-- ‑‑‑‑Order passed by Authority challenged‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Court was duty bound to explore every possible explanation for its validity and examine the entire field of powers conferred on the Authority in pursuance to which the impugned order had been passed. Liaqat Ali Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Jehangir Wahlah, Advocate/Standing Counsel on Courts' call. The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of the respondents dated 1‑3‑2005 through this Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 1340 of 2005 which was disposed of along with connected Writ petition No. 1339 of 2005 by this Court vide order, dated 28‑1‑2005 with certain direction to respondent No.2. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 along with order of this Court, but he refused to receive the order of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 on 16‑2‑2005, which is attached with this writ petition as Annexure "B". The petitioner also submitted a complaint before Wafaqi Mohtasab Aala, but subsequently, he had withdrawn the same from Wafaqi Mohtasab Aala as is evident from the contents of application dated 25‑1‑2005 which is attached with this writ petition as Annexure "D". He further submits that there was no finding of Wafaqi Mohtasab Aala in the case of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent on the basis of findings of Wafaqi Mohtasab Aala, is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason. He further submits that the respondent passed the impugned order in violation of parameters prescribed by this Court in order dated 28‑1‑2005 passed in Writ Petition 1340 of 2005 along with connected Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2005.

3. The learned Standing Counsel entered appearance on Court's call he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 6‑2‑2005 vide order, dated 28‑1‑2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The impugned order itself reveals that the petitioner did not appear before respondent No.2 in terms of direction of this Court. The plea of the petitioner is that she appeared before respondent No.2, but he refused to receive the documents from the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner sent her application to respondent No.2 on 16‑2‑2005. It is, settled principle of law that acts of officials are presumed to be correct. In case, respondent No. 2 has not received documents from the petitioner, then the petitioner has to send his application to respondent No.2 on 7‑2‑2005 or 8‑2‑2005, but the petitioner has sent application to him on 16‑2‑2005. This fact brings the case of the petitioner in the area that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has filed a complaint before Wafaqi Mohtsab Aala, who has given findings against the petitioner vide order dated 1‑2‑2005. Against which the petitioner has alternative remedy to file representation before appellate authority by virtue of Article 32 of President Order No. 1, 1983. The petitioner has adopted novel procedure as is evident from the contents of petitioner that the petitioner has withdrawn complaint filed by her. The Wafaqi Mohtasab Aala has given findings against the petitioner. This fact also brings the case in the area that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character, he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:‑‑ Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236; Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462; Haji Saifullah's case PLD 1989 SC 166 and Kh. Muhammad Sharif s case PLD 1998 SC

725. It is also settled principle of law that it is the duty of the Court to explore every possible explanation for its validity and examine the entire field of powers conferred on the authority in pursuance to which the impugned order has been passed, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian Evacuee Property, West Pakistan and 4 others PLD 1971 SC

811. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. M.B.A./I‑90/L Petition dismissed.