EMPLOYEES MANAGEMENT GROUP, PAK-SAUDI FERTILIZERS LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN IN THE MINISTRY OF PRIVATIZATION (PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION)

ORDER

Objection Case :

Appellant filed Constitutional petition challenging the vires of the Ordinance No.3 of 2000 known as Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 through Constitutional petition in the office of this Court. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) raised following objection:

"Please file it at proper Bench."

The learned counsel of the petitioner re‑filed the same in the office on 5‑3‑2002.

2. Additional Registrar (Judl.) on 6‑3‑2002 fixed the case before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as objection case for 7‑3‑2002. The objection was up held by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 7‑3‑2002. The appellant being aggrieved filed this Intra‑Court appeal.

3. The learned counsel of the appellant submits that office objection as well as the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of Law on the following grounds:

(i) Head office of the respondent No. 1 is situated at Alfalah Building, the Mall, Lahore. Therefore, the objection is in violation of section 20 Explanation No.2 of C.P.C.

(ii) Petitioner had already filed W.P. No.5865 of 1996, which had already been admitted for regular hearing. The same is pending before the Full Bench of this Court, when the question about the maintainability of the appeal was asked, learned counsel of the appellant submits that any order passed by the learned Single Judge in Constitutional petition is an order in exercise of original jurisdiction, thus in view of section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 I.C.A. would be competent. He further urged the bar contained by virtue of Proviso of section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance is not attracted in the present case as the appellant has no right to file appeal or revision to challenge the vires of the impugned Ordinance.

4. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record our-self. We are of the view that appeal is not competent as the learned Single 'Judge has not exercised its original civil jurisdiction at the time or passing the impugned order. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Begum D.F. Hassan v. Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore (PLD 1974 Lahore 117). The relevant observation is reproduced here under:‑‑‑

"Furthermore, under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 an appeal is competent against an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of this Court's original civil jurisdiction. Even if the appellant's argument was to be accepted that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court while dealing with Constitutional petitions is an original jurisdiction, the jurisdiction exercised shall at best be its special original jurisdiction' and not its original civil jurisdiction' as observed by the Supreme Court while considering the nature of this Court's jurisdiction qua writ petitions dealt with in this Court. As appeals under the Ordinance and the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 are competent only if they fall within the terms of the provisions of section 3. The present appeal must be held to be incompetent as it is not covered in terms, either by the provisions of subsection (1) or by subsection (2) of the above enactments. "

It is also settled principle of Law that the Constitutional jurisdiction though original jurisdiction is distinct from the civil jurisdiction as observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan v. The Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court, West Pakistan, through the Registrar, High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and two others. (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 171). The jurisdiction must obviously be described in Constitutional jurisdiction of an original kind, therefore, Intro‑Court appeal is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in, Khushi Muhammad etc. v. Agha Hassan Raza (19901 ALD 207(1)). These proceedings are not akin the original nature of proceedings referred in section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It is not conceivable that any order passed by this Court on the office objection s would be an order in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction amenable to I.C.A., therefore, this appeal is incompetent and the same is dismissed.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./E‑21/L Appeal dismissed.