2002 PLP 1458 (YLR)

Irfan Masood Sheikh for Petitioner. Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner before Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala. The learned Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala accepted the complaint of respondent No.2 vide order dated 26‑9‑1998. The petitioner being aggrieved filed review application before Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala, who dismissed the same vide order, dated 15‑3‑1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before President of Pakistan, who also dismissed the same vide order, dated 23‑9‑2000. Respondent No.2 approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib through an application on 17‑10‑2000 for complying with the direction within 30 days, which was accepted.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are not in accordance with‑ law. In support of his contention, he relied upon a case "Pakistan International Airline, Corporation, Karachi v. Wafaqi Mohtasib and others" (1998 SCMR 841).

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

4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the material facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala, who accepted the same vide order, dated 26‑9‑1998. The petitioner filed revision petition before Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala, which was dismissed by him vide order, dated 15‑3‑1999. The petitioner filed a representation before the President of Pakistan which was also dismissed by the President of Pakistan vide order, dated 23‑9‑2000. The complainant tiled an application for implementation of direction of Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala who directed the respondents vide order, dated 12‑8‑2000 to comply with the direction within 30 days. In case, the contents of writ petition and representation of the petitioner filed before the President of Pakistan, are put in juxta position, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of the disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Younis Khan's case (1993 SCMR 618). The representation of the petitioner was finally dismissed by the President of Pakistan vide order, dated 23‑9‑2000 and the petitioner did not challenge the order or President of Pakistan before this Court till date, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well‑known principle of laches as per principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Khiali Khan's case (PLD 1997 SC 304). It is also admitted fact that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner; therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable' as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑ Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1974 SCMR 279), Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal and other (PLD 1981 SC 246) and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others "(PLD 1981 SC 522). It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of concurrent findings of Tribunals below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Musaddaq"s case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. The petitioner does not approach this Court within time limit as the order passed by the President of Pakistan against the petitioner on 23‑9‑2000. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as vested right has already accrued to the complainant as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑ Kh. Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1988 Lahore 725), Federation of Pak. and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan" (PLD 1989 SC 166), Syed Nawab Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) and Wali Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others (PLD 197,1 SC 106). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./P‑82/L Petition dismissed.