2001 PLP 2666 (YLR)

The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed writ petition allegedly on behalf of Lahore Cable Operators Association (Regd.) 42, Mozang Road, Safanwala Chowk, Lahore challenging the vires of the notice issued by Director, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority on 27‑6‑2001.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has no authority under the law to issue impugned notice as the petitioner is a cable operator and fulfilled all the requirements of the respondents qua payment of the installation fee. etc., and running a firm under the name and style of "The Millennium Eye" as is evident from acknowledge of registration by Registrar of Finn Lahore under Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner secured a licence to establish and maintain the cable T.V. in Pakistan from the respondents as is evident from Annexures B and B‑

1. The petitioner deposited Rs.50,000 in order to secure licence from the respondents. The petitioner was elected Vice‑Chairman of a body of the Cable Operators of Lahore namely "Lahore Cable Operators Association" as copies of memorandum of Association and Article of Association and., Certificate of incorporation are attached as Annexures D and E with the writ petition. Respondent No.3 issued impugned notice dated 27‑6‑2001 without lawful authority simply to harass the petitioner association under influence of respondent No.5. He further submits that impugned notice is in violation of the terms and conditions mentioned by the respondents at the time of issuance of licence to the petitioner. He further submits that impugned notice was issued by respondent No.3 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as same was issued without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was served with an official notice dated. 20‑6‑2001, and the petitioner submitted reply of the notice. Thereafter the respondents kept silent and all of sudden issued impugned notice. He further submits that impugned notice is in violation of the conditions prescribed in licence specially Conditions Nos.1.9, 6.3 to 6.13 and 10.3. He further submits that there is no allegation qua the petitioner that he is orginating any problem as entered in the terms of the licence and rules framed therein, Operators of Cable Network and in case, the petitioner committed any violation of the conditions of licence or laws then licence of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and respondent No.2 has no legal authority to issue impugned notice for initiating criminal action against the petitioner. He further submits that Nasir Shahid Lodhi, President of Lahore Cable Operators of Association, filed a Writ Petition No.3767 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated i2‑3‑2001 with the direction to respondents to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. Respondent No. 3 did not agree to change his views and the petitioner being aggrieved, approached respondent No.2 for redressal of the grievance. Respondent No.2 invited the office‑bearers of the Association on 25‑6‑2001 at Islamabad. Subsequently, the Schedule meeting was adjourned due to pre -engagement of the office‑bearers with Station Commander, Lahore on the said date as is evident from Annexures H, I and J attached with writ petition. Respondent No.3 issued impugned notice and asked S.S.P., Lahore for help in closing business with Cable Operators, therefore, impugned notice is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same was issued by the respondent No.3 in violation of Article, 4, 18 and '25 of the Constitution. Respondent No.3 is in league with the video centres owners, who treated the cable operators as their competitors and have grudge and business rivalry and respondent No.3 had taken action against the petitioner under the influence of respondents No.5.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.

4. The petitioner is a registered association and writ petition is filed by the Vide‑President of the Association. It is settled principle of law that principles of C.P.C. are applicable in the proceedings arising of Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others" (PLD 1970 SC 1). The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the violation of Order 29 of C.P.C. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by "1980 CLC 1375" (Messrs Ideal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Khair‑un‑Nisa A.G. Mirza) read the observations as under:‑‑‑ "In my view, Order 29, Rule 1 of C.P.C., covers not only a statutory corporation but any other Company or society incorporated under the Company Act or other appropriate provision of law " The petitioner did not attach any resolution of the association which authorises the petitioner to file this writ petition on behalf of the association, therefore, writ petition was not properly filed by the competent person and is liable to be dismissed. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ "NLR 1993 UC 54" (Millat Tractors Ltd. v. Ch. Tawakal‑ullah), NLR 1991 A.C.432" Millat Tractors Ltd. v. Ch. Tawakal-ullah), "PLD 1966 SC 684" (Messrs M. Siddique Muhammad Umar and another v. Australasia Bank Ltd.) "PLD 1971 SC 550" (Iftikhar Hussain Khan v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore) "1982 CLC 2575" (Phool Muhammad v. Abdul Ghaffar). "PLD 1975 Karachi 327" (Group Capt. A.M. Murad and another v. Mushtaq Ahmad and 9 others)

5. It is also settled principle of law that association or Company cannot orally authorise another person to sign the plaint on his behalf, if subsequent rectification would not cure the illegality, committed at the time of institution of the suit which is not existent and nullity in the eyes of law. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ " 1987 CLC 367" (Abubakar Safely Mayet v. Abbot I.aboratories and another). (AIR 1936 Lahore 321) (Punjab Zamindars Bank Ltd., Layallpur v. Madan Mohan Singh and others) (AIR 1935 Lahore 345) (Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath and others). (AIR 1972 SC 1311) (Turner Marrison & Co. Ltd. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd.). In view of Order 29 of C.P.C., it is to be further shown that Company/Corporation has to decide to institute a suit and authorise the signatory to do so as per principle laid down by this Court in "PLD 1991 Lahore 381 " (Government of Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills and others). It is also settled principle of law that if no valid authority is conferred on the person instituting a suit, may be Director of Company, it is not competent to file, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore" (PLD 1971 SC 550). It is pertinent to mention here that Article of Association does not show any such authority for filing of suit/writ petition on behalf of the association by Vice Chairman, the contents of the writ petition and affidavit also do not disclose any authority in favour of Vice‑Chairman and no resolution of the office‑bearers of the association in favour of the petitioner to file this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed as per principle laid down in case "Messrs Standard Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Rio ‑Centre and others" (1994 CLC 2413).

6. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is well within his right to approach higher authority of respondent No.3, S. S. P., Lahore and Director‑General of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority for redressal of his grievance by explaining his position before them. They all of course, will proceed in the matter after perusing the view‑points of the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. S.A.K./M‑732/L Petition disposed of.