1998S8 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.

By this common order, I intend to dispose of above four Constitution petitions which have been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, In all the aforesaid Constitution petitions, except in Constitution Petition No.52 of 1997, the petitioners are practising lawyers; whereas in the latter Constitution petition, the petitioner is an Ex-M.N.A. and Ex-Federal Minister. It will be advantageous to reproduce the paras. of the memo. of petitions containing prayers, which reads as follows:- CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.50 OF 1997 "It is, therefore, prayed that in the case titled as Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and others (C.P.Nq248-Q/97) impugned order dated 26-11-1997 be declared void, illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unauthorised and unconstitutional so also without constitutional and legal authority and has no legal and Constitutional effect so far on the notification of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan referred to above, dated 5-6-1994, issued by respondent No.

1. The petition may be accepted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents 1 to

5. It is further prayed that the complete record of the case (C.P.No.248Q/97) be summoned at the principal seat of the Supreme Court at Islamabad. The petitioner further prays that a reference under the Constitution may kindly be ordered to be sent before the Supreme Judicial Council as per Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and a direction under the Constitution may be made to respondent No.5 in respect of the above. Any other order that may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case be also made in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to meet the ends of justice." CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 51 OF 1997 CONSTITUTION PETITION N0.52 OF 1997 "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by accepting this petition the interim order dated 26-11-1997 passed by the learned Circuit Bench at Quetta be set aside and be declared to be of no effect whatsoever. " CONSTITUTION PETITION- N0.56 OF 1997 "It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Constitutional Petition No. l-P of 1997, and making an order for constitution of Full Bench for 1-12-1997, and impugned order in Constitutional Petition No.248-Q of 1997 by respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6, in connivance with the respondents Nos. l and 7, be declared ultra vires the Constitution, been arbitrary, mala fide, unauthorized and unconstitutional so also without Constitutional and legal authority and have no legal effect on the notification of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan referred to above, dated 5-6-1994, issued by respondent No.

1. The petition may be accepted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents Nos. l to

7. It is further prayed that the complete record of the case Constitutional Petition No.248-Q/97 and Constitutional Petition No. l-P of 1997, be summoned at the principal seat of the Supreme Court at Islamabad and the cases be disposed of with this petition. It is further prayed that on account of violation of the Constitution of Pakistan and orders made by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and their defiance by the Quetta and Peshawar Supreme Court Benches (respondents Nos.2 to 6), the respondents/learned Judges be not entrusted with the cases, since they are by their own order no more Judges of the Supreme Court after denying the existence of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Any other order that may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case be also made in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to meet the ends of justice."

2. A penisal of the aforequoted prayers indicates that in all the aforementioned Constitution Petitions the petitioners have assailed the judicial order passed by a Bench of this Court at Quetta on 26-11-1997 in Constitution Petition No.248-Q of 1997. However, in Constitution Petition No.56 of 1997, the order dated 28-11-1997 passed by another Bench of this Court at Peshawar in Constitution Petition No. l-P of 1997 has also been impugned. It may further be noticed that in Constitution Petitions Nos.50 and 51 of 1997 it has also been prayed that a Reference under Article 209 of the Constitution be made to the Supreme Judicial Council against the two Judges named therein. Whereas in Constitution Petition No.56 of 1997, it has been further prayed that five respondents Judges be not entrusted with the cases for the reason stated therein. It may also be pointed out that in Constitution Petition No.51 of 1997, the petitioner has also prayed that the Federation be directed to appoint me as the permanent Chief Justice before 17-2-1998 with effect from 17-2-1998. It has also been prayed that the Benches of the Supreme Court at places other than the capital of the Federation be abolished.

3. The above Constitution petitions came up for hearing on 7-1-1998. Constitution Petitions Nos.50 and 51 of 1997 were argued by the petitioners in person; whereas Constitution Petition No. 52 of 1997 was argued by Mr. S.Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, and Constitution Petition No.56 of 1997 was argued by Mr Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry. learned Advocate Supreme Court, who was also petitioner in Constitution Petition No.50 of 1997 We asked the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing .to satisfy us, as to how the aforesaid Constitution petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution could be maintained for assailing the orders passed by other Benches of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the above Article, namely, 184(3) in the aforementioned two Constitution petitions filed at Quetta and Peshawar.

4. They were unable to demonstrate that a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution could be entertained against an order of another Bench of this Court passed in exercise of the same jurisdiction However, the thrust of their arguments was that the petitions involve unusual and unprecedented situations where some Judges of the same Court had restrained the then Chief Justice from performing his judicial and administrative functions as the Chief Justice. Their further submission was that the above Constitution petitions involve question of great public importance which go to the root of existence of this Court.

5. We tried to impress upon them that the above facts would not attract. Article 184(3) of the Constitution if otherwise the aforesaid petitions are not sustainable in view of well-settled proposition of law, firstly, that a Bench of this Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over an order or a judgment of another Bench of this Court and, secondly, Article 184(3) confers jurisdiction on this Court of the nature contained in Article 199 of the Constitution, clause (5) of which excludes inter alia the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In other words, no writ can be issued by a High Court or the Supreme Court against itself or against each other or its Judges in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, subject to two exceptions, namely, (i) where a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge acts as persona designata or as a Tribunal or (ii) where a quo warranto is prayed for and a case is made out.

6. It will be advantageous to refer to the case-law on the above legal issues. (i) Malik Firoz Khan Noon, Prime Minister's House, Karachi v. The State (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 333); in which this Court while construing the provisions of sections 411-A and 439, Cr.P.C. held that a Single Judge of the High Court while holding trial under extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction of the High Court was not an inferior Court to a Division Bench of the same Court and, therefore, the latter was not competent to remit the case for retrial by a Single Judge. (ii) Mian Jamal Shah v.. The Member, Election Commission, Government of Pakistan, Lahore etc. (PLD 1966 SC 1); In the above case this Court, while reversing the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, held that a Constitution petition would be competent against a Judge of a High Court acting as a Member of Election Tribunal for decision of election disputes as he does not act as a High Court Judge but as a persona designata. (iii) Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976 SC 315); in which the facts were that a practising lawyer challenged the appointment of Mr.Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh as the Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh and Balochistan while he was a permanent Judge of this Court. Inter alia the question in issue was, as to whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued. Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C.J. and Anwarul Haq, J. were of the view that a writ of quo warranto could not be issued against a Judge, whereas Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul, JJ. were of the contrary view and held that in a fit case a writ of quo warranto could be issued against a Judge of a superior Court. However, on merits all were of the view that the petition merited dismissal. (iv) Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman through Legal Heirs and 6 others (PLD 1990 SC 465); The above case was heard by a Bench comprising four Judges. It was an appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed at the bar that the view taken by a Bench of two Judges of this Court inter alia in the case of Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din (PLD 1981 SC 148) was not the correct view of law and, therefore, it needed to be reviewed by the Bench which was seized of the aforesaid case. In that context, the following observations were made: "Learned counsel then contended that the -reasoning by two learned Judges of this Court in the case of Ahmad Khan could and should be reexamined in depth by the present Bench which consists of four Judges; even though, the view expressed in the case of Ahmad Khan stands affirmed and reiterated by four Judges of this Court in the case of Bashir Hussain Shah. We regret, this prayer of the learned counsel also, cannot be granted. He forgets that this Court in a different Bench cannot sit in appeal on the decision of another Bench even if the second is higher than the other one. The decisions in both situations are that of the Supreme Court. His reference to the order, dated 23rd October, 1989 of this Court in the case of Mir Alam Gul above-referred; wherein, an 'observation' was made that difference of opinion existing between two Full Benches of different High Courts on the question involved in this appeal 'should' be considered by a larger Bench, also is of no help to him. Admittedly the learned Judges making the reference did not declare it as a law that such a decision by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, would in any manner be less efficacious, vis-a-vis, the decision on the law point involved. The conditions and limitations for re-examination of law declared by this Court are not satisfied here. Accordingly, the law laid down in the case of Ahmad Khan would hold the field and the reference made on 23rd October, 1989 in the case of Mir Alam Gul to a larger Bench also, stands satisfied by the decision in the meanwhile in the case of Bashir Hussain Shah by the larger Bench of four Judges. " (v) Mst. Noor Jehan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (199'7 SCMR 160); in which the mother of Ex-Capt. Arshad Jamil, who was convicted for the murder of nine persons and who lost the legal battle up to this Court inasmuch as his petition under Article 185(3) of the' Constitution was already dismissed, filed a Constitution petition under Article 184(3). This Court while dismissing the above Constitution petition observed as under:- "

7. It may be observed that a proceeding under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution cannot be initiated, the effect of which will be to reopen a matter, which is already finally adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in exercise of its regular jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution. It may be observed that the jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution is of the nature of the jurisdiction, provided for in Article 199 of the Constitution, clause (5) of which expressly, inter alia, provides that the Supreme Court and a High Court are not included for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under the above Article as they are not covered by expression 'person' used in the above Article. 8

9

10. There cannot be any cavil with the legal proposition propounded in the above-quoted extract of the order that this Court being the apex Court and being Constitutionally bound to do complete justice cannot be inhibited by technicalities, but while pressing into service the above principle, we cannot overlook the fact that at the same time it is Constitutionally mandated not to exercise jurisdiction which is not warranted by law. If we were to accept Mr. Satti's contention that notwithstanding that this Court has already exercised jurisdiction in the instant case under Article 185(3) of the Constitution as well as under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order 26 of Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, it can still entertain a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, it will disturb the scheme of the Constitution as a matter which has already been finally adjudicated in exercise of the regular and/or review jurisdiction would become susceptible to be reagitated, as pointed out hereinabove and that there would be no finality attached to a judgment/order of this Court rendered in exercise of its regular jurisdiction. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the above office objection is based on the order dated 21-4-1993 of Shafiur Rahman, J., passed in a Human Right Case No.9 of 1993 already referred to in the above-quoted office objection. We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the above office objection. The above Constitution petition is not entertainable. The office objection is upheld and the petition is dismissed." (vi) Muhammad Shafi and another v. Ataullah and others (1984 SCMR1124); In the above case this Court, while declining a petition for leave against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in which the order passed by the High Court in a Settlement Revision was assailed, observed as under:-- "

2. As appears from the impugned order, the petitioners had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Settlement Revision on certain grounds. Thus, they were seeking a writ against an order earlier passed by the High Court itself, which they could not do under Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as the High Court was not a 'person' as defined in clause (5) of that Article, against whom the High Court was empowered to issue a writ. The recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was, thus, not competent. In fact in view of this Courts pronouncement in Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1983 SC 46), resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round was barred. Such frivolous and vexation litigation cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. The other party has been put to expense by lodging a caveat. This is, therefore, a fit case where costs should be awarded under Order XXVII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, Rule 5 of this Court's Rules. We, accordingly, while dismissing these petitions, direct the petitioners concerned to pay, in each petition, a sum of Rs.2,000 (rupees two thousand only) in gross in lieu of taxed costs. The amounts on realization shall be paid to respondents 1 to 3. " (vii) Muhammad Bakhsh and others v. Ghulam Hussain and others (1989 SCMR 443); in which this Court while declining a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution again reiterated the above principle enunciated in the case of Muhammad Shafi and another v. Ataullah and others (supra) in the following words:- "The learned counsel admitted that the basic order of which the petitioners were aggrieved, was the one passed on 26-11-1978. The High Court, in its civil revisional jurisdiction, had in the earlier round refused to set it aside. In other words, when challenging the same order in writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the second round, the petitioners could not have succeeded unless the revisional order of the High Court was set aside. This was not possible because a writ could not be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution so as to annul an order or the effect of an order passed by the High Court itself. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not press these petitions any further.' (viii) Messrs Tank Steel and Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Dera Ismail Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC. 77); In the above case also the question involved before this Court was, as to whether a Bench of the Peshawar High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution could issue a writ against another Bench of the same High Court which had exercised appellate jurisdiction under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance. The above question was answered in the negative in the following words:- "

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has taken strong exception to the competency of the writ petition before the High Court as in effect, final orders passed by the Appellate Bench of he High Court were challenged in the Constitutional petition,. We entirely agree with the learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the very maintainability of the writ petition. A bare reading of clause (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan would make it clear that the High Court' is not a 'person' to whom a writ of High Court can be directed. The obvious result is that the petition is barred by the provisions of the Constitution itself and the petitioners could not be granted any relief in writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It appears to us that the mere conferment of Constitutional jurisdiction on a Bench of the High Court does not have the effect of converting another Bench which exercises the appellate powers of the same High Court inferior to the former. This Court in Malik Feroz Khan Noon v. The State (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 333) has approved the dictum laid down in the case of Goonesinha v. O.L.de Kretser (AIR 1945 PC 83) by the Privy Council that a writ of certiorari, which is in the nature of a revisional order and can only be issued to an inferior Court, cannot be issued by a superior Court to bring up an order made by a Judge of that Court. "

7. Reference may be made to the following judgments of the High Courts in which the same view has been taken by Full Benches comprising three learned Judges and the Division Benches:- (i) Rahmatullah Khan v. Pir Shahzada and 3 others (PLD 1961 Peshawar 40 at page 49-E) (Full Bench); (ii) Mumtaz Ali Bhutto v. Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq and 2 others (PLD 1979 Karachi 524 at page 529-C) (Division Bench); (iii) Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The Federation of Pakistan etc. (PLD 1980 Karachi 113 at page 115-B) (Full Bench); (iv) Aslam Pervaiz v. State (PLD 1984 Lahore 204 at page 218) (Division Bench); (v) Dawood and 3 others v. Jamilur Rehman (PLD 1985 Quetta 29 at pages 40, 42, 43 and 47) (Division Bench); (vi) Gohar Amah Khan v. Malik Aman and 3 others )1989 CLC 2032 at page 2033, para. 6) (Division Bench); . (vii) Muhammad Ashraf and another v. United Bank of Middle East Limited (1991 MLD 2037 at pages 2039 and 2042 (Division Bench); and (viii) Syed Zainuddin Qadri v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. (1995 MLD 280 at page 283-A) (Division Bench).

8. There seems to be unanimity of view among the superior Courts on the question that a High Court or the Supreme Court cannot in exercise of its p Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with an order passed by another Judge or another Bench of the same Court.

9. Then it was urged that the petitioners would have no remedy against a,, patently illegal order. The factum that an aggrieved party may have no other" legal remedy simpliciter will not bring his case within the purview of Article 199 of he Constitution if otherwise it does not fall within its compass. Secondly, in the instant case, the law provided remedy of .review under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, if a case could have been made out. Even otherwise the above impugned orders dated 26-11-1997 and 28-11-1997 passed by the Quetta and Peshawar Benches of this Court had ceased to exist in view of the orders dated 2-12-1997 and 23-12-1997 passed by a Bench of ten learned Judges of this Court at the principal seat at Islamabad. The present exercise seems to be futile.

10. Adverting to the prayer of the petitioners that a Reference be made to the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209 of the Constitution for misconduct, it may be pertinent to quote clause (5) of the above Article, which reads as under:- "(5) If, on information received from the Council or from any other source, the President is of the opinion that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court- (a) may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity; or (b) may have been guilty of misconduct, the President shall direct the Council to inquire into the matter."

11. A perusal of he above clause indicates that on an information received from the Council or from any other source, the President is of the opinion that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity or may have been guilty of misconduct, he shall direct the Council to inquire into the matter. The above clause does not admit filing of a Constitutional petition for a direction to the Supreme Judicial Council or to the President to initiate proceedings of a judicial misconduct against a Judge of a superior Court by a practising lawyer or any other citizen of Pakistan. The wisdom seems to be that in order to keep the Judges free from being pressurized through frivolous Constitutional petitions or other legal proceedings for filing of a Reference, the framers of the Constitution provided above mechanism. This Court or a High Court cannot take upon itself the exercise to record even a tentative finding that a particular Judge has committed misconduct warranting filing of a reference against him under Article 209 of the Constitution as it will be contrary to the language and spirit of the said Article.

12. As regards the prayer regarding the abolition of Benches at places other than Islamabad, it may be pertinent to point out that clause (1) of Article 183 of the Constitution lays down that the permanent seat of the Supreme Court shall subject to clause (3) thereof be at Islamabad. Whereas clause (2) of the above Article provides that the Supreme Court may from time to time sit in such other places as the Chief Justice of Pakistan with the approval of the President may appoint. It may be stated that clause (3) is no longer relevant which catered for the period commencing from the date of enforcement of the Constitution and the construction of a permanent building at Islamabad.

13. The holding of Circuit Benches by the Supreme Court at Lahore, G Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta are in consonance with clause (2) of Article 183 and, therefore, this Court cannot declare the aforesaid provision of the Constitution as violative of any other provision of the same, nor we find it violative of any other Article of the Constitution.

14. Before parting with the above discussion, I may observe that the above situation would not have arisen if my learned brother Sajjad Ali Shah, J. would have agreed with me to decide the question of the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the Judges' Case in line with the view taken in the above case for the appointments of the Chief Justices of the High Courts. The same would have partially redressed gross injustice meted out to Saad Saood Jan, J. an upright, honest and competent Judge, who was denied the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan for no justifiable reason and who had then still about 3-1/2 months to retire, as was pointed out by me. I have touched upon this question in my opinion in the Presidential Reference on the question of the Prime Minister's advice for the appointments of Judges of the superior Courts and Constitution petition filed by Al-Jehad Trust reported in PLD 1997 SC 84 inter alia in paras. 6 and 7 at page 153, which read as under:- "

6. I may observe that in the Constitution petition relating to the Judges' Case, the petitioner had prayed that the then senior most Judge, Saad Saood Jan, J., who was then appointed as the Acting Chief Justice, should be appointed as the permanent Chief Justice. It may be observed that while the aforementioned Constitution petition was pending, the present incumbent of the office of the Chief Justice was appointed. The question, as to whether the senior most Judge had legitimate expectancy to be appointed as the Chief Justice in the absence of any concrete thing against him, was argued before the Bench which was hearing the Judges' Case, to which I was a Member and so also the learned Chief Justice. I sought the assistance on the above question of the learned counsel who appeared in the aforesaid Constitution petition. My personal view was that since I was not directly involved, the question of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan should also be decided as we were deciding the question of appointment of the Chief Justices of the High Courts, Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and other matters relating to the judicial appointments in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, the learned Chief Justice was of the contrary view. The above question was left open for the reasons mentioned in para.53 of my opinion in the Judges' case.

7. The abovementioned question was again raised by the Federation in the Review Petition filed against the judgment in the Judges' case as well as in Special Reference No. l of 1996. The above Review Petition was withdrawn by the then Government for the reason, need not be repeated here. Whereas above Special Reference was withdrawn by the Caretaker Government on 23-11-1996. Thus, the above relief prayed for in para. () has nexus with the Judges' case on the parity of reasoning in the latter case, and it can be urged that the said relief falls within the ambit of Article 184(3) of the Constitution." I may mention that the above Review Petition filed by the Federation had come up inter alia on 2-7-1996 for hearing at Lahore before a Bench of this Court comprising seven members i.e. Sajjad Ali Shah (the then C.J.), Ajmal Mian, Saleem Akhtar, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Fazal Karim, JJ. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court who appeared for the Federation, requested that the learned Chief Justice should not preside the Bench. The plea of the Federation in the Review Petition was that the question of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan which was left open in the judgment of the Judges' Case (PLD 1996 SC 324) should be decided and that the same principle should be applied which was made applicable to the appointments of the Chief Justices of the High Courts, if the ratio relating to the latter was to be kept intact. Since by then Saad Saood Jan, J. had retired, I pointed out to Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan that I would also not like to sit on the Bench if the then learned Chief Justice would not sit as I was the then senior most Judge, keeping in view para. 1 of Article IV of the Code of Conduct of the Judges of the Superior Courts, which provides that "a Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest, including those persons whom he regards and treats as near relatives or close friends". (My above remark was reported in the national Press). The aforesaid review petition could have been heard by the remaining five Hon'ble Judges of the above Bench. However, my learned brother Sajjad Ali Shah (the then C.J.) turned down the above request of the Federation, with the result that the Federation withdrew the above review petition on 7-7-1996. The same was dismissed as withdrawn by an order of even date, which reads as under:- "On enquiry whether the record is available to be produced by the Federal Ministry of Law in compliance with the order passed by this Court on the 3rd July, 1996, Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, stated that he has instructions to say that if the Bench is not reconstituted, he would withdraw the review petition. Request for reconstitution of the Bench is rejected by the Chief Justice in view of the case of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1978 SC 125) and in the result the review petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. " with the result that the above question remained unresolved till the short order dated 23-12-1997 by the Bench of ten Judges of this Court.

15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the aforesaid Constitution petitions have no merits and they are, therefore, dismissed. (Sd.) Ajmal Mian, C.J (Sd.) Munawar Ahmed Mirza, J (Sd.) Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J. (Sd.) Abdur Rehman Khan, J. (Sd.) Ch. Muhammad Arif, J. M.B.A./M-66/S Petitions dismissed.