P L D 1976 Karachi 851 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner impugnes the decision dated 4th of October, 1975 of the Appellate Committee constituted under Rule 8 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, by which the Permanent Residence Certificate issued to her by the District Magistrate, Khairpur was annulled.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on migration from India in 1948, her father settled at Khairpur where a house bearing No. 483 in Mohalla Lukman and so also agricultural land was allotted to him. From 1948 till August, 1953 he resided in Khairpur, but in September 1953, he was appointed as an Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Pakistan, and posted at Karachi. A certificate of domicile was issued to him on 5th of September, 1953 by the relevant authority wherein his domicile was stated to be at Lukman in the city of Khairpur. The petitioner's father resided at Karachi in a quarter bearing No. 142, 'F' situated at Jacoblines. In February 1955, the petitioner was born at Karachi and soon thereafter her father left for Hague where he was next posted but before leaving the country he sent his family to Khairpur where the petitioner received her primary education. The petitioner's father retired in 1965 whereafter he commenced his legal practice at Karachi and it was from here that the petitioner passed her matriculation and intermediate examinations. There after she applied in form `A' for the grant of a Permanent Residence Certificate from the District Magistrate, Khairpur, who, after holding an enquiry granted the certificate in form 'G' whereupon she applied for admission to the first year M. B. B. S. class for the academic year 1974-75 against one of the 15 reserved seats for female candidates but before she could be admitted one Khair Mohammad Khaskheli, General Secretary of the Sind Peoples Student Federation, District Khairpur represented against the grant of such certificate to the Home Secretary, who is also the Chairman of the Permanent Residence Certificate Committee, Karachi. It is a matter of record and indeed admitted by the petitioner that consequent upon such representation she was interviewed by the Appellate Committee both at Khairpur and Karachi about half a dozen times and thereafter by the impugned order her permanent Residence Certificate was cancelled as she was held to be permanently residing at Karachi. The respondents denied her permanent residence at Khairpur and in para 12 of the counter affidavit pleaded that a number of students had felt aggrieved by the grant of such certificate to her and therefore, on appeal being preferred the order assailed was passed. However neither the names of the students who were said to be affected by the certificates nor the person who had filed the appeal was disclosed, but from the proceedings of the meeting held on 24th of September, 1976 "Khair Mohammad Khaskheli and others" are said to be the appellants and at the time of the hearing of the petition the learned Additional Advocate-General produced before us the representation which was treated as an appeal and which purports to be by Khair Mohammad Khaskheli.

3. In the context of the facts pleaded by the parties the controversy rests on the question as to whether Khair Mohammad Khaskheli could be regarded as an aggrieved person within the meaning of Rule 8 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 so as to entitle him to prefer an appeal on the basis of which the adverse decision was taken against the petitioner. Therefore it will be relevant to reproduce the representation in extenso and so also Rule 8 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 as under :- "To The Home Secretary and Chairman, P. R. C. Committee, Karachi. Sir, I, Khair Mohammad Khashkeli, General Secretary, Sind Peoples Student Federation, District Khairpur and President Government Pakistan Degree College Khairpur (Shagird-Sangat), beg to submit that the following students are seeking admission in the Medical College. They have obtained bogus P. R. Cs. from Khairpur. It is requested that the matter may be probed into and justice done accordingly. (1) Syed Farooq Jamal Naqvi son of Syed A. Wahid Naqvi (2) Arshad Naseer Khan son of Naseer Ahmad Naqvi (3) Mohammad Hanif son of Kafor Khan Siyal . (4) Mohammad Azhar Khan son of Mohammad Akhtar Khan (5) Ahmad Ali son of Mohammad Umar . (6) Mrs. Sanjeeda Bano daughter of Fida Hussain (Sd.) Illegible (Khair Mohammad Khaskheli), Gen. Secy., S. P. S. F. and other Students of Distt. Khairpur. (7) Shagufta Yasmin daughter of Haji M. Sharif . (8) Raid Jahan daughter of Sayed Mazhar Ali (9) Nighat Sultana daughter of Hakim M. Zamir (10) Nadra Imam daughter of Mazhar Imam (11) Mohammad Siddique son of Kabir Khan (12) Akhtar Hussain Soomro (13) Arshad Musharaf son of Musharaf Ali Siddiqui (14) Farakh Kamal son of Zahoor-ul-Islam. (15) Mukbtar Ahmad son of Ahmad Bux. (Sd.) Illegible Gen. Secy. S. P. S. F. District Khairpur. "8 (1) Any person aggrieved by the grant or the refusal to grant by the District Magistrate of a certificate of Permanent Residence in Form 'C' or Form `D' may prefer an appeal to a Committee to be set up by Government for the purpose; and the. orders of the Committee confirming, modifying or setting aside the orders of the District Magistrate shall be final. (2) A Committee to be set up under this rule shall consist of not less than 3 and not more than 5 persons, who shall be senior officers of Government.

4. Ex facie, Khair Mohammad Khaskheli in his capacity as General Secretary, Sind Peoples Student Federation and President, Pakistan Government Degree College, Khairpur had represented against the cancellation of the Permanent Residence Certificate issued to the petitioner. Whose grievance he was voicing is not apparent, but this much is certain that he was not a candidate for admission to the first year M. B. B. S. class and therefore he cannot be said to have any personal interest in the matter. It would have been a different matter if another eligible female candidate was affected by the grant of such certificate in which case she could have preferred an appeal but not a person who was not affected the least by the grant of such certificate. In the absence of any personal interest can Khair Mohammad Khaskheli have any locus standi to represent against the grant of certificate ? Rule 8 provides that any person aggrieved by the grant of such certificate could file an appeal. The word 'aggrieved' connotes a 'legal grievance' which in turn refers to a person who is prejudicially affected by the grant of such certificate. Khair Mohammad Khaskheli cannot be regarded as a person having a legal grievance and therefore his representation cannot come within the meaning of the phrase "any person aggrieved by the grant or .4 refusal to grant by the District Magistrate of a certificate of Permanent Residence". The language of Rule 8 also does not permit a suo motu action and therefore the Appellate Committee could only exercise the appellate power if there was a valid appeal before it. This not being so, the appellate jurisdiction could not be assumed when the essential requirement of rule 8 was not complied with.

5. The learned Additional Advocate-General invited our attention to the case reported as Mian Fazal v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another (P L D 1969 S C 223) for advancing the contention that Khair Mohammad Khaskheli did have a locus stand! to file an appeal. Evidently this case is of no help to the contention advanced, for the petitioner in that case was held to be an aggrieved person as he was able to show that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which is clear from the fact that the Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore had appropriated a particular site for the use of the public as the market place and this induced the petitioner to purchase a piece of land just opposite the proposed market place in the hope of opening a shop there but subsequently the scheme was altered he had hoped for, which deprivation was held by the Supreme Court to confer, a valuable right to enable him to maintain the writ petition. When the distinction was pointed out to the learned Additional Advocate-General, he contended that one of the reserved seats for which the petitioner had applied would have after the cancellation of the certificate reverted to the general pool and thus would be available to some other male candidate. This explanation by no stretch of imagination gives a cause to Khair Mohammad Khaskheli for, no where it is disclosed that he was a candidate for admission to the first year M. B. B. S. Class and therefore he was likely to have been selected against that seat.

6. Lastly the learned counsel urged that since the seat has been filled in the petition has become infunctuous. This contention is again misconceived for what is assailed is the cancellation of the Permanent Residence Certificate and the relief as to direction for admission is merely consequential. It will not affect the maintainability or the petition even if the direction is with held. The right which had accrued to the petitioner pursuant to the grant of the Permanent Residence Certificate was a valuable right and could not be taken away by an illegal exercise of jurisdiction arising from an income tent appeal. At the close of the arguments on 5th of March, 1976 we had by a separate order allowed the petition and granted the declaration qua the cancellation of the certificate but had withheld the direction in regard to the admission of the petitioner. The above are the reasons for it. S. A. H. Petition accepted.