2001 PLP 2762 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Scope ‑‑‑Mala fides‑‑‑Question of mala fides cannot be resolved without recording of evidence, High Court has no jurisdiction to record evidence under Art. 199 of Constitution. (d) Mala fides‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ General allegations of mala fides are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Saeed Ahmed Khan's case PLD 1974 SC 151 rel. Tahir Munir Malik for Petitioners. The brief facts out of which the present I.C.A., arises are that the appellants got admission in Government College of Physical Education for Women M.A., Part II. The respondent No. 3 sent the admission forms of the appellants to the respondent No.

4. Subsequently respondent No. 3 had withdrawn the admission forms of the appellants vide letter, dated 11‑6‑2001. The appellants being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No. 13215 of 2001 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order, dated 18‑7‑2001. The appellants being aggrieved filed this I.C.A.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No. 3 had sent the admission forms of the appellants to respondent No. 4 without mentioning the word provisionally, therefore, respondent No. 3 had no authority whatsoever, under the law to withdraw the admission forms of the appellants in view of the rules and regulations of the respondent No. 4 specially Chapter I clause A. He further submits that learned Single Judge was erred in law dismiss the Constitutional petition on the ground that respondent No. 3 had withdrawn the admission form of eight candidates but the remaining five candidates did not agitate the matter in Constitutional petition. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that this fact is not borne out from the record as the five candidates were allowed to sit in the examination by respondents Nos. 3 and

4. He further submits that appellants did not conceal any material fact in the Constitutional petition. He further submits that some application was filed before the Secretary Education against the respondent No. 3 who being aggrieved by this fact had forged the attendance register of the appellants and had malafidely withdrawn the admission forms of the appellants. He further submits that action of the respondent is not in accordance with law and the principle laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Mst. Firdous Fatima v. The Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1971 Lahore 843).

3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record ourselves.

4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ "No reason has been stated much less established to support the plea of mala fide. On the present record, there is nothing to disbelieve or doubt the statement of respondent No.

3. Petitioners have miserably failed to show that their attendance is up to the prescribed limit. There is no reason to disbelieve that the notice dated 10‑5‑2001 shortage of attendance etc. was pasted on the Notice Board. It is relevant to observe that in the notice, as many as eight students including the three petitioners are mentioned. All the students have been advised to attend the special classes, which were to commence w.e.f. 11‑5‑2001. It is unfortunate that the petitioners have tried to act clever by suppressing this fact from the Court, as no such statement has been made in the petition, petitioner do not seem to have approach this Court with clean hands." The aforesaid operative part reveals that the appellants have miserably failed to show that their attendance was up to the prescribed limit. The appellants' counsel has also failed to point out any rules and regulations of respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 4 was violated by taking action against the appellants. In this view of the matter, learned Single Judge was justified not to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another v. Ali Mir (1984 SCMR 433). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan's case (1993 SCMR 618). It is also settled principle of law that question of mala fide cannot be resolved without recording evidence and this Court has no jurisdiction to record the evidence while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is also settled principle of law that general allegation of mala fide are not sustainable in eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1974 SC 151). The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the appellants have clearly concealed the material fact in the Constitutional petition. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified not to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Nawabzada Rounaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236). The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the appellants is distinguished on facts and law as the appellants did not file any application for redressal of their grievances before the Vice‑Chancellor or the Punjab University. In view of what has been discussed above, this I.C.A., has no merits as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bakhtiar Muhammad Kasuri v. Principal Lahore Law College (NLR 1980 Civil SC 36). However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appellants are well within their rights to approach the Vice‑Chancellor for redressal of their grievance in case appellants file applications before the Vice‑Chancellor of the Punjab University then he is directed to redress the grievances of the appellants strictly in accordance with law under parental jurisdiction, keeping in view the hardships of the appellants under hardship regulations.

5. With these observations the Intra- Court Appeal is disposed of. S.A.K./M.A.K./S‑273/L Order accordingly.