1998 PLP 1847 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Writ of mandamus‑‑‑Writ of quo warranto‑‑‑Issuance of‑‑ Requirement‑‑‑Petitioner who was a member of an Association had prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent who was President of the said Association‑‑‑Respondent against whom issuance of writ of mandamus was sought did not perform functions relating to the affairs of the Federation, the Province or any local Authority but was President of a voluntary Association of the Teachers‑‑‑Respondent not falling within ambit of public office, neither writ of "mandamus" nor writ of "quo warranto" could be issued against him. Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery (Ltd.) PLD 1975 SC 244 ref. Muhammad Ayub Khattak for Petitioner. NASIR‑UL‑MULK, .J.‑‑‑ The petitioner, who is a member of All Teachers Association, N.‑W.F.P. has, through this Constitutional petition prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to Khan Faraz, President of All Teachers Association, N.‑W.F.P. (respondent No. 1) that he should not extend his tenure as President from 2 to 4 years on the basis of amendment made in the Constitution and, therefore, he should announce a date for the election to the office of the President as his 2 years term already stands expired on 14‑11‑1997.

2. At the hearing of the petition in motion the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to respondent No. l under Article 199 when he does not perform functions related to the affairs of the federation, the province or any local authority. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244 and argued that even if a writ of mandamus was not competent a writ of quo warranto can be issued.

3. In Salahuddin's case the august Supreme Court while holding that the Chief Executive of a Public Limited Company did not perform functions relating to the affairs of the Federation or a Province or a local Authority and, therefore, no writ for mandamus could be issued ruled the said office to be a public office and, therefore, a writ of quo warranto could competently be granted. The judgment lays down the determining factor for a public office, namely, whether the office involves a delegation of some of the sovereign functions of Government either executive, legislative or judicial to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. Unless his powers are of this nature, he is not a public officer. Surely the office of the President of All Teachers Association N.‑W.F.P., which has not been established under any law, but is a voluntary Association of the teachers, would not fall within the ambit of public office. Thus, neither writ of mandamus nor the writ of quo warranto could be issued against respondent No.l. However, the petitioner may seek any other remedy provided under the law. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in‑limine as not maintainable. H.B.T./98/P Petition dismissed