2006 PLP 1739 (CLC)

Instant constitutional petition challenged the letters dated 28-10-2003 and 8-12-2003 issued by the respondents requiring the petitioner to deposit additional amount of U.S $ (Dollor) 10,000 to be declared illegal void and of no legal consequence.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner is a Pakistani National, living in Norway and was admitted to M.B.B.S. Class in Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore for the Session 1996-1997 under Self-Finance Scheme. Prospectus for the session in which the petitioner got admission prescribed payment of US$ (Dollor) 50,000, for the College Endowment Fund and monthly regular usual fee in Pak. Rupees, from overseas candidate/students selected for admission. It was also prescribed by the prospectus that overseas students were to pay US. $ (Dollor) 10,000 through a pay order in the name of the Principal of the College and the remaining US$ (Dollor) 40,000 were to be paid in form of bank guarantee, for payment of US$ 10,000 for the each year of remaining four years of the course/study. The petitioner at the time of her admission fulfilled the prescribed formalities and after selection on merits she had been attending her Classes. According to her, much time was exhausted in completion of the admission, formalities, therefore, she joined the first year M.B.B.S. Class as in May, 1997, due to which she could not qualify the promotion test and was detained in the first year Class.

3. Due to detention of the petitioner in the first year Class, College Administration demanded another amount of US $(Dollor) 10,000 for her failing year and she was restrained to attend her Classes. The petitioner being aggrieved of conduct of the respondents filed a constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.9531 of 1998) which was also decided by this Court on 3-11-1999 and was dismissed. The petitioner has filed this second petition with the same grievance that she is not liable to pay additional US $ 10,

000. On notice by this Court the respondents appeared through their counsel.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have examined the record, appended herewith. Though this Court in the latest judgment on the subject in the case of Anwar-ul-Haq v. Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2004 Lah. 771 decided that payment of additional fee by the overseas Pakistanis was not provided by para.12(b) of the prospectus for the Session 1996-1997 thus, the demand was not permissible, yet we ourselves feel unable to sit in the appeal against the judgment dated 3-11-1999 delivered on petitioner's own constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.9531 of 1998), which was dismissed on merit and was not further challenged by the petitioner in the Intra-Court Appeal or before the Honourable Supreme Court and thus has attained finality. Second petition is clearly barred by principle of res judicata enshrined by section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which prohibited the Courts to try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially has been in issue in a former suit between the same parties and was also finally decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is followed and is applied to the writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, second petition in hand was clearly barred and was not' maintainable. It goes without saying that judgment in the case of Anwar-ul-Haq Ahmad (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court, if beneficial to the petitioner she may be conferred benefits thereof by applying principle of consistency by the Principal of her College in his parental jurisdiction but on account of above legal difficulty, we are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this behalf. Principal will also keep in his view the petitioner's educational career, her investment and time spent by her in attending the Classes under the orders of this Court.

5. For the reasons noted above, instant petition was not maintainable at Iaw and is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./A-122/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.