P L D 2005 Lahore 275 (PLP)

(c) Administration of justice‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Nobody should be penalized by inactions of public functionaries. Ahmad Lateef Qureshi's case PLD 1994 Lah. 3 rel. Ashiq Alvi for Petitioner. Mian Muzaffar Hussain Legal Advisor of L.D.A. Mehboob Ahmad Advocate for WASA. The learned counsel of the petitioner orally requests to implead Director Town Planning LDA which is not opposed by the learned counsel of the respondents. Same is allowed and the learned counsel of the petitioner has impleaded Director Town Planning, LDA as respondent No.4.

2. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner has already filed an application before respondent No.4, which is pending adjudication therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.

3. When the learned counsel of the petitioner is confronted with this situation, he submits that he has mentioned this fact in paras. 4 & 5 and the application is not decided by respondents No.3 or any other competent authority to whom respondent No.3 has delegated powers. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the applications of the citizens without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time.

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

5. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. The petitioner has already filed application for sanctioning of the site plan before the respondents which is pending adjudication, therefore, it is a good ground not to exercise desertion in favour of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky v. Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 SC 185). It is also settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the application of the citizens without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inactions of the public functionaries as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ahmad Lateef Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is pertinent to mention here that work load of this Court is increasing day by day on account of inaction of the public functionaries. In case the public functionaries would discharge their duties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible with reasons then people will of course satisfy. Due to lack of decision by the public functionaries on the application of citizen, within time or without reason the Legislature in its wisdom on account of the inaction of the public functionaries has added section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act wherein public functionaries are duty bound to decide applications within reasonable time with reasons. The public functionaries are drawing their salaries from the Public Exchequer, therefore, it is their duty to discharge their duties in accordance with law. Non‑exercising powers by the public functionaries is termed as not to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution and section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In case the public functionaries consider themselves in place of the citizens then this situation would not arise at all. It is settled principle of law that the State functionaries are expected to act fairly and justly, in a manner which should not give to anyone any cause of complaint on account of discriminatory treatment or otherwise. The Constitution is a social binding contract between different sections of life. It is not only the duty of the Judiciary to provide justice to the people of Pakistan but it is also the duty of the public functionaries to provide justice to the people of Pakistan. Every body is bound to obey the command of the Constitution by virtue .of Article 5(2) of the Constitution, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case" (PLD 1975 SC 383). The public functionaries have to work within the framework of Constitution and law as the law laid down in Zahid Akhtar's case (PLD 1995 SC 530). In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.4, who is directed to decide the application 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 fifteen days after receiving the order of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.4 in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 8‑2‑2005, who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law in terms of the aforesaid direction either himself or send the same to competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in terms of aforesaid direction of this Court preferably within fifteen days till 21‑3‑2005. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.

6. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition along with all the annexures to Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Legal Advisor of LDA, who is directed to send the same to respondent No.4 for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Legal Advisor of LDA for onward transmission to respondent No.4 for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy "Dasti" on payment of usual charges. S.A.K./M‑859/L Petition disposed of.