P L D 1992 Supreme Court 62 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑An interim order during the pendency of a Writ Petition regarding challenge to the levy of property tax has been brought under challenge through this leave to appeal petition. The impugned order reads as follows:‑‑ "Petitioner's claim of having been gifted two Kanals bungalow by his uncle soon after his retirement as Assistant Director, Central Excise and Land Customs Department sounds utterly incredible. Ex facie, it appears to be a benami in service transaction warranting probe into his sources of income; consequently, let a copy of this petition be handed over to learned Additional Advocate‑General for getting in touch with the Director, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab for detailed scrutiny of petitions.='s wealth in juxtaposition with his known sources of income". In the outset the learned counsel was questioned as to why this case being from Lahore; both the learned counsel as well as the learned A.O.R. being of Lahore, the petitioner/litigant has been burdened with the additional expense of filing the petition at Rawalpindi. Even though it is otherwise not prohibited to file any petition at the headquarters; but it is the duty of the counsel to safeguard the monetary interest of his client also. He, while accepting this position explained that there being no Bench available at Lahore and the question of stay being involved, under the force of circumstances this petition was filed at Rawalpindi. On 7‑10‑1991 when the petition was filed it was well known that the availability of Bench at Lahore was not a matter of month or even of a fortnight. The nature of order did not create any emergency either. We, accordingly, rejected the explanation and advised the learned counsel to compensate his client for the extra expenses, involved in filing the petition at Rawalpindi‑‑both with regard to the counsel as well as the learned A.O.R. Otherwise it would be necessary to proceed against him for professional misconduct. On this he explained that the petitioner being his friend and colleague he has not charged any fee. We then heard the learned counsel on merits and after lengthy arguments he remained unable to satisfy us, even regarding the question; whether, it was a fit case for filing of a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order. Despite that he continued insisting that his client has been harmed in his reputation by the learned Judge in the High Court directing an inquiry; and, that according to him it was a fit case for admission of the petition. In reality the grievance made is that the High Court instead of admitting the Writ Petition has adjourned it to further hearing and at the same time has made an attempt at ascertaining certain facts‑‑indeed by a discretionary order. The petitioner when filing a Writ Petition must be conscious and must be presumed to know that the High Court has ample power to enquire about the facts stated in the petition or urged in support thereof. The very first sentence in the impugned order is to the effect that the petitioner had asserted that a bungalow over 2 Kanals of land had been gifted by his uncle soon after the former's retirement from service. In the context of the points raised in the writ petition the question; whether or not it was a genuine gift by an uncle to a nephew; and, whether the High Court was bound to accept the assertion made. from the petitioner's side, does not need any serious consideration. At a limine . hearing the High Court is not only competent but also bound to make preliminary enquiry for reaching a prelimiary satisfaction about the factual basis of a writ petition. Ignoring this part in the writ petitions some times leads to unnecessary admission of writ petitions which ultimately, after considerable time and expense, are dismissed. After he. aring the learned counsel on these questions and on the advisibility of filing the petition for leave to appeal in this Court (which opportunity the learned counsel fully availed) we are of the view that there is . no force in this petition and further that it being frivolous should not have been filed. For this and earlier mentioned reasons we consider it fit, while dismissing this petition, to direct the learned counsel to place on record a certificate from the petitioner that he has been compensated for the unnecessary expense if any, incurred by him on the filing of this petition at Rawalpindi; failing which the Registrar shall initiate proceedings against the counsel for professional misconduct. AA./M‑1578/S Leave refused.