MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
ORDER
FAZL‑I‑MAHMOOD, J. ‑‑The appellants have felt aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge who dismissed their writ petition after observing that the case involved factual controversies and that the statutory appeal being an efficacious remedy, therefore, recourse to extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of the Intra‑Court Appeal argued that the learned Single Judge was not right in observing that the right of appeal was available to the appellants under section 9 of the statute, that is, Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non‑Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986. The learned counsel elaborated that an Allotment Committee contemplated by section 4 of the said Act had merely powers to make recommendation and it was for the Collector to pass an order on such recommendation. In the instant case, the Allotment Committee had itself assumed the jurisdiction and powers of allotment. He further argued that there was no basic order passed by any competent allotting authority who in a given case was either the Collector (Assistant Commissioner) or District Collector. This position as per his submission emerged on a combined reading of sections 4 and 9 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, remedy of appeal against the without jurisdiction order of the Allotment Committee was thus neither available to the appellants nor could it constitute an adequate remedy.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants.
4. A perusal of the provisions of the statute, under examination, clearly brings out that section 9 thereof provides for appeals to the Deputy Commissioner against every order made by the Collector under the Act with a further proviso that where the order is made by the Collector of a district, the appeal shall lie before the Commissioner whose order thereon shall be final.
5. There can be no cavil with the general legal proposition canvassed before us that mere recommendations of a recommendatory body remain so unless they are accepted or rejected by a body or person authorised by the statute to do so, in other words, the competent authority. We consider it wholly unnecessary to go into this question in detail in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because as will be seen hereafter we are inclined to uphold the order of the learned Single Judge on another view of the matter as well. It should suffice to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State P L D 1973 SC 368 and the enunciation of principle of the law therein to, the following effect:‑
?It is an equally well‑settled principle that if a Court not having jurisdiction wrongly exercises such a jurisdiction, an appeal lies from that decision in the same manner as an appeal lies from a decision with jurisdiction."
6. Assuming for the sake of argument that there could be any doubt entertained by the appellants in respect of the competency of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of section 9 even then they were not without an adequate remedy under the statute. We may advantageously refer to section 10(2) of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non‑Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986 which reads as under:‑
"10 ?????? Power of Government.‑‑ (1)????(2) If the Government considers t at anything done or intended to be done by or on behalf of any Officer or Authority exercising any power under this Act, is not in conformity with .law or is, in any way, against public interest, it may, by order, quash the proceedings, suspend the execution of any order, or prohibit the doing of anything proposed to be done or require such Officer or Authority to take such action as may be specified."
(3) ??????? .......................................................
A fair reading of this provision brings out that the Provincial Government has been clothed with very wide powers to achieve the purposes of the Act to keep the functionaries under the statute within the bounds of their jurisdiction and to prevent them from doing what they are not permitted by law to do or to require them to take the specified action. The scope of this provision extends to anything done by an officer or authority exercising any powers. The Allotment Committee contemplated by section 4 of the Act or exercise of any power by it under the said law would be amenable to correction by the Government.
7. After examining the scheme and the purposes of the Act, we are of the view that the legislature has cast a duty on the Government faithfully implemented` to ensure that the provisions of the statute are and any breach or. tendency to go off the rails is effectively checked and entitled persons drawn from the poor classes of non‑proprietors in rural areas are not made to suffer injustices or get involved in; expensive litigation which may prove ruinous and a negation of the very purpose of law. Every person covered by the statute can have recourse to this remedy for redress of his grievances. The Government or its delegatees are obliged to discharge their functions faithfully and honestly and when a grievance is brought to their notice in terms of section 10(2) of the aforesaid Act, to examine the same and to provide relief to the persons who suffered injustices and to prevent perversity of purpose of law in the light of guidelines given in the aforesaid provision.
8. We have also heard the learned Additional Advocate‑General Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Khan. He is one with the counsel to the extent that what appears to be an egalitarian measure to help the poor masses should not be allowed to be eroded through administrative vagaries. We have, however, brought home to the learned law officer the desirability for examination of the irregularities alleged by the appellants to check the tendency of malpractices which are sure t lead to injustices.
9. In view of what has been said above, we do not feel that at this stage any interference is called for in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. If the appellants' genuine grievances remain without redress, they may approach this Court after invoking the appropriate remedy under section 9 or 10 of the Act.
M. B. A./M‑901/L ?????? ‑‑‑‑‑ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.