2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed representation before respondent No.2 who has not decided the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the applications/representations of 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. Mr. M. Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. entered appearance on Court call. He submits that constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act.

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

5. In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the public functionaries to act strictly 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 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 2003 SCMR

325. It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representations of 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, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service's case 1998 SCMR 2268. It is also 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 Examination, Board of Intermediate, Lahore PLD 1994 Lah. 3.

6. In this view of the matter, let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No.2, who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order, preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court, after verifying the record of the respondents, in case the petitioner had already filed representation before him and he has not passed any order on the same till date and the petitioner has also not availed any other alternative remedy till date. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 in his office at 11-00 a.m. on 9-8-2004, who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within two months till 9-10-2004 either himself or send the same to competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court within two months till 9-10-2004. He is further directed to' submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition along with all the Annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to the aforesaid learned Addl. Advocate-General for onward transmission to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./A-40/L Order accordingly.