P L D 2013 Supreme Court 403 (PLP)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

On 20-7-2009 the Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had "requested" the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore to take appropriate measures for "double source power supply to the Civil and Criminal Courts in the Punjab so that the courts may smoothly work and deliver justice to the litigants before them". Upon an initiative of respondent No.1 the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot passed an order on 9-8-2011 directing the officials of GEPCO to give effect to the above mentioned request of the Registrar deeming the said request to be an order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The petitioners challenged the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot before the Lahore High Court., Lahore through Writ Petition No.19104 of 2011 which Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the said Court on 24-8-2011 and the following order was passed in that regard: "This petition does not disclose a justiciable cause of action. There has been gross default by the petitioner in complying the order of this Court which was passed in 2009. If there is any logistical or administrative formality that has been overlooked, the petitioner should approach the learned D&SJ, Sialkot for resolving the matter. The matter is to be resolved in a spirit of public service. The learned D&SJ, Sialkot shall also establish the officer who is responsible for delay in compliance and take suitable corrective action against him.

2. Petition dismissed." Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.1 in person and the learned Additional Advocate- General, Punjab appearing for respondent No.2 and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance.

3. The first sentence of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore was that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners did not disclose a justiciable cause of action. With due deference to the learned Judge-in-Chamber we disagree with the said observation because the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 9-8-2011 had not been passed by him in any legal capacity as the said order had been passed by him in the so-called capacity of a Director Human Rights ostensibly deriving inspiration from the famous Quetta Declaration. The learned Judge-in-Chamber had not appreciated that by virtue of Article 175(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 "No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law". The capacity of a Director Human' Rights assumed and exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot in the matter was not conferred upon him by the Constitution or by or under any law and, thus, the petitioners were entirely justified in assailing his order before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through a Writ Petition and the issues of jurisdiction so brought by them before the Lahore High Court, Lahore were indeed justiciable.

4. The second sentence of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber was that there had been gross default by the petitioners in complying with an "order" of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in the year 2009. We note that the "order" of the Lahore High Court, Lahore alluded to in the impugned order was not an order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore but was merely a "request" made by the Registrar of the said Court to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. The learned Judge-in-Chamber ought to have appreciated the difference between an order of the Court and a request of the Registrar who was merely an employee of the Court and not the Court itself.

5. We have further observed that in the impugned order the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had directed the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot to establish as to which officer working with the petitioners had failed to comply with the so-called order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and to take suitable corrective action against him. In the backdrop of what has been discussed by us above such a direction was surely unwarranted because no person working with the petitioners was bound to comply with a "request" made by an employee of the Lahore High Court, Lahore when such a request could not be termed as an order of the Court.

6. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 24-8-2011 in Writ Petition No.19104 of 2011 is set aside. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1945-L of 2011

7. As the main petition has been converted into an appeal which has been allowed, therefore, this miscellaneous application seeking interim, relief has lost its relevance. Disposed of. MWA/D-4/S Appeal allowed.