2001 PLP 259 (YLR)

(ii) The writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of section 32(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable in presence of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner against final order. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: 2000 SCMR 702 (Messrs Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd's case) and 1993 SCMR 1177 (Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug's case) He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of section 9(B) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. He further submits that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. Petitioner was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and respondent No.2 solicited guidance from the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the worthy Registrar. The Hon'ble Supreme court directed respondent No.2 to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as applicable to such cases. He further submits that respondent No.2 is not aware of permission granted by Interior Ministry or by the NAB to the petitioner. The permission granted by the NAB or Interior Ministry relates to exit control and not to the trial of the accused before Accountability Court. He further submits that petitioner opted to go abroad without prior intimation either to respondent No.2 or to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He further urged that surety of the petitioner had given undertaking to produce the petitioner in court on each date of hearing. Similarly undertaking was also given by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at time of granting bail to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner had violated his undertaking. He further submits that it is the discretion of the trial Court to grant or refuse the exemption to the petitioner. He exercised discretion justly, fairly and after providing several opportunities to the petitioner to appear before him. The petitioner failed to avail the opportunities and the respondent No.2 was constraint to pass the impugned order. This Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that writ petition is maintainable against the interim order as the impugned order is a final order to the extent of exemption. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: 1988 MLD 2949 (Mian Muhammad Farooq's case) and 1985 CLC 2758 (Mst. Sherin Masood's case). He further submits that the impugned order is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the law laid down by the superior Courts. Therefore, writ petition is maintainable.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself It is admitted fact that petitioner's wife filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed. Petitioner's wife being aggrieved filed civil petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the leave was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner was also granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as 2001 SCMR 294 (Ms. Shahida Faisal and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others). The relevant observation qua the jurisdiction of High Court by interpreting section 9‑B of the NAB Ordinance, 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principle: "From the bare reading of this section, it is manifest that the Courts other than the Supreme Court are covered under the said section, for it has been expressly mentioned in this section that the Courts including the High Court shall have no jurisdiction to grant bail. The omission of the words 'Supreme Court' is significant, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court under this section is not barred to grant bail to such persons." In view of the aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is better and appropriate to reproduce section 32(c) to resolve the controversy between the parties: "32 Appeal: (a)

(b)

(c) Notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force of this Ordinance, no appeal against any interlocutory order of the 90 (xxx) Court during the proceedings pending before it under this Ordinance, shall lie and appeal shall lie only against the final judgment of the Accountability Court." It is settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is not expected ‑to interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the tribunals particularly in view of the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute which does not make such orders even appealable under the relevant provisions. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: 1976 SCMR 450 (Mumtaz Hussain Bhutta's case); PLD 1978 SC 185 (Mian Manzar Bashir's case) and PLD 1987 Lah. 39 (Main Ghulam Dastgir's case). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice and fairplay, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is held in abeyance for 15 days from today till 22‑6‑2001 to enable the petitioner to avail proper remedy under the law before the competent forum. N.H.Q./F‑45/L Petition dismissed.