P L D 2009 Lahore 1 (PLP)

SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, C. J.

Respondent No. 5, who is Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala, has, by means of Annexure `A' dated 28-5-2008, directed the District Police Officers/Superintendents of Police to constitute `Musalehati' Committees in the Districts which has become subject-matter of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner, who is a Union Nazim in District Gujrat, has assailed this action of the said respondent. Writ Petition No.12065 of 2008 is founded on similar premises and will have the same fate as this petition.

2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has taken me through various press clippings and other published material to contend that such an action of respondent No.5 is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as no law including the Police Order, 2002 contemplates the formation for such Committees; that his action is violative of sections 102 to 106 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and the provisions of Local Government Musalehat Anjuman (Constitution and Functions) Rules, 2006 (which provides for settlement of disputes through Musalehat Anjumans selected by Insaaf Committees at the Union Council level); and that it amounts to setting up of a parallel judicial system negating the concept of independence of judiciary as envisaged by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the law. It has, thus been prayed:-- "(a) the impugned order dated 28-5-2008 (Annex-A) issued by the Res. No.5/RPO, Gujranwala Region/whereby in breach of the Police Order, 2002 and the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 he illegally and without any lawful authority directed all the DPOs and the SPs in the Gujranwala Region, to constitute "Musalehat Committees" at the Union Council level consisting of 5/6 members from general public (in fact political workers of PML-N) and further directed to provide them offices in their respective police stations and refer to them civil, criminal and family disputes etc. for decision/may graciously be set side/quashed by declaring the same as unconstitutional, illegal without any lawful authority, void ab initio and of no legal effect; (b) Directions may graciously be issued: (i) to all the DPOs in the Gujranwala Region/Resps. Nos. 6 to 11 to refrain from complying with the illegal and unlawful directions of the RPO/Resp.No.5; from constituting such Committees; providing such Committees offices In the police stations; referring cases to such committees; or compelling the parties to appear before these illegal and unconstitutional Committees; (ii) to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to conduct detailed enquiry regarding the impugned acts of excess/abuse of authority, committed by the RPO/Res.No.5 and to ensure that no such unconstitutional and illegal parallel judicial structure is created, under the executive authority of police, for the purposes of victimizing the political rivals, by illegally empowering some hand picked workers of the ruling party i.e. PML(N) and that too at the expense of public funds and resources; (iii) to all the respondents, to, instead, encourage and promote amicable settlement of disputes through the already existing alternative disputes resolution mechanism provided under sections 102 to 106 of the PLGO, 2001 i.e., through constitution of "Musalehat Anjuman" selected by the Insaaf Committees of the Union Councils." To support his contentions, reference has been made by him to Ch. Muhammad Idrees, Advocate v. S.H.O. Police Station, Pattoki, District Kasur and others 1999 CLC 570, Ijaz Hussain and another v. S.H.O. Police Station, Saddar Bhakkar and others 1999 PCr.LJ 954 and Abdul Kareem v. Returning Officer, Qauidabad, District Khushab and 2 others 1999 MLD 3244. All these precedents concerned with the erstwhile "Khidmat Committees" whose interference in civil/criminal matters was disapproved by the Court.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab while opposing the petition has emphatically controverted the plea of the petitioner that any parallel judicial forum is being set-up. According to him, a bona fide effort for dispute resolution is being made at the local level in matters where the disputants agree to the resolution of the disputes by such Musalehat Committees. It is contended that such dispute resolution mechanism is being practisced and followed to save the people from agony of long-drawn litigation if they consent to it. According to him, by doing so, no violation of any law is intended nor being done. He has also taken exception to the locus standi of the petitioner who, according to him, is not "aggrieved person" to file any such petition. Reference is made to Anjuman Araian Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others PLD 1982 SC 308 and Nisar Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional Secretary, Food and Agriculture Government of Pakistan-and 3 others 1979 SCMR 299.

4. In the petition apart from Government of the Punjab through its Chief Secretary, the Provincial Police Officer, Punjab/Inspector-General Police, Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala and all District Police Officers of Gujrat, Sialkot, Narowal, Hafizabad and Mandi Bahauddin have been cited as respondents. Report and parawise comments were called from them, which have been received.

5. By means of letter dated 28-5-2008, the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala (respondent No. 5) called upon the District Police Officers, Gujranwala Region and Superintendents of Police to constitute Musalehat Committees for each Union Council comprising 5/6 persons emphasizing that only persons of good reputation should be included in the Committees. The under-mentioned matters of five categories are referable to such Committees: -- In the context, the position taken in the report and parawise comments submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab need to be kept in view. It has been emphasized that "The primary duty of police is maintenance of law and order and protect life, property of the citizens, preserve and promote public peace under Article 4 of the Police Order, 2002. The respondent No.5 Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala in the public interest to save them from unnecessary expenditures of litigation in the matters of petty nature and to keep the district police away from resolving the matter of petty' nature and enable them to focus on dealing and fighting heinous crime i.e. Kidnapping for Ransom, Murder, Dacoity and Robbery etc. The Committees have shown commendable performance in 2-3 weeks and had effected resolution/sulah in 541 civil and criminal cases in all the Districts of Gujranwala Region." It is stated that during his visit to Gujranwala district he had appreciated the constitution of these Committees and their working and that keeping in view the encouraging results, the process of constitution of Committees is being extended in the whole of Province in the interest of public. It is further stated that "the Committees have been established to promote peace and reconciliation in the society as envisaged under Article 4 of the Police Order, 2002" and that no parallel judicial structure/system has been created in violation of Article 175 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Another aspect, which has been highlighted is that "no public fund or resources are being used on the Musalehat Committees. They are volunteers and not being given any remuneration, perk or privilege from public money." Respondent No.5, who is the initiator of this mechanism and methodology, has, in his comprehensive report, brought forth various-aspects, which motivated him to undertake this whole exercise. By citing instances of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism being invoked universally for dispute resolutions, provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, provisions of section 89-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the provisions of Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002 and the provisions of sections 102 to 106 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, it is sought to be pressed that the real object was amicable dispute resolution inter se the consenting parties with no compulsion involved. It is stated that "the very initiative of Musalehat Committees is based upon above mentioned (ADR) concept. These Committees are no way an impediment in the way of choosing regular and constitutional forum such as criminal and civil courts, if either disputing party is willing to opt for such forum. In our society, Jirga and Punchait system is well-established and has been playing an effective role in dispute resolution since centuries. The Masalahti Committees in question are even not coming in their way rather they are facilitating their job by providing an organized way of doing their job". It is emphasized by him that while selecting members of such Committees sincere efforts are made for searching well-reputed persons with good background.

6. The perusal and reference to the above stance of the respondents would make it abundantly clear that an organized initiative has been taken for amicable dispute resolution at the grass root level through conciliatory and mediatory means. This is inexpensive, burden free and speedy mode of dispute resolution. In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in its Preamble and Objectives Resolution (which is now part of the Constitution), it is ordained that principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed. Keeping such aims and objects in view, Principles of Policy have been laid down in Chapter II of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Its Article 37, is quite instructive on this subject, which requires the State to promote Social Justice. The import of clause (d) thereof cannot be overlooked which is that the State shall (d) ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice; To provide inexpensive and expeditious justice is not only the duty of the State but of all its organs and functionaries. At this juncture, I would like to observe that in the neighbouring country India where social set up and conditions are not very different from ours, Agarwal Anurag K has dealt with the subject of "Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods in Development of Society: 'Lok Adalat' in India" as follows "Peace is the sine qua non for development. Disputes and conflicts dissipate valuable time, effort and money of the society. It is of utmost importance that there should not be any conflict in the society. But in a realistic sense, this is not possible. So, the next best solution is that any conflict which raises its head is nipped in the bud. With the judicial system in most of the countries being burdened with cases, any new case takes a long time to be decided." It cannot be ignored that till the time the final decision comes, there is a state of frustration and disappointment. According to him, "To get out of this maze of litigation, courts and lawyers' chambers; most of the countries encourage alternative methods of dispute resolution. India has a long tradition and history of such methods being practised in the society at grass-roots level. These are called panchayat and in the legal terminology, these are called arbitration. These are widely used in India for resolution of disputes. Other alternative methods being used are Lok Adalat (People's Court), where justice is dispensed summarily without too much emphasis on legal technicalities. Methods like negotiation, mediation and conciliation are being increasingly used to resolve disputes instead of going for litigation. There have been recent amendments in the procedural law of India to incorporate these methods so that people get justice in a speedy manner and there is lesser conflict in the society." The views expressed by the learned author are aptly attracted to the circumstances here. After all the purpose of B establishment of courts under any law is to secure one and the only object which is the administration and dispensation of justice inter se the contestants and to resolve the conflicts and controversies. If the same goal can be achieved through other means by the parties with their consent, no one should have any legitimate objection to such a course being adopted. It is indeed the ultimate will and satisfaction of the parties that should have primacy. Every efforts, therefore, should be made for achieving these objectives and should be encouraged.

7. In the modern world, despite availability of legal and judicial forum, Courts, Tribunals and statutory bodies, Alternative Dispute Resolution is being preferred, followed and applied in order to resolve disputes inter se the parties through various methodologies including negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration, etc. It saves the parties from expensive and cumbersome litigation. Since respondent No.5 has (as is being projected) taken such initiative in good faith and constituted such Committees for this purpose, it in no-way impedes the existence or working of the traditional courts as only the consenting parties will approach such Committees for dispute resolutions. There is no compulsion involved nor any coercive process to be used by such Committees. It is a consensus oriented mechanism, the functions of which is entirely dependant upon the willingness and consent of the parties. No question of setting up of parallel Judicial System arises in this context. It is misconception and. a misnomer that any court is being created as Musalehat Committee has by no means the colour of "Court". The existence of such a Committee even does not deprive any court of its jurisdiction and thus will not fall within the ambit of provisions of Article 175 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the precedents mentioned above, which related to the Khidmat Committees in the past is inapt inasmuch as in Ch. Muhammad Idrees's case (supra), the Khidmat Committee, Pattoki had summoned the petitioner at the instance of the respondent which action of issuing certain directions by the Committee was found as illegal. In Ijaz Hussain and another (supra), it was held that the Khidmat Committee had no jurisdiction to initiate any inquiry to get a criminal case registered. In Abdul Kareem's case (supra), interference made by the Khidmat Committee in the enrolment of voters was held beyond the jurisdiction of said Committee and "the unnecessary interference allowed by the Election Authority to the Members of Khidmat Committee was deprecated". The contention of the learned counsel thus loses its significance.

8. The genesis of the objection taken by the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab to the maintainability of the petition was that only an "aggrieved" person or party could take any exception to the constitution of such Committees and the petitioner being not an aggrieved person in that sense had no locus standi in the matter. The petitioner is not directly affected by the mere constitution of these Committees. The contention and objection of the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has substance and prevails.

9. Reverting again to the reports and parawise comments submitted by the respondents and as re-stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the functioning of Musalehati Committees is entirely dependent upon the willingness sand consent of the parties. It is only when the parties so desire that such Committee should resolve their disputes at local levels, the constitution of such Committees and their functioning, therefore, does not offend any law nor any legitimate exception can be taken thereto. I am sanguine that such Committees do act and perform functions of dispute resolution of a large segment of our Society i.e. have-nots strictly within the parameters noted above and do not overstep and remain within their bounds to achieve the above mentioned goal of amicable, inexpensive and expeditious' resolution of disputes. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with the above observations. M.B.A./S-114/L Petition dismisse