DIN GUL Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, through Secretary Home and Trible Affairs Department Civil Secretariat

C..P. No. 459 of 2022, decided on 30th October, 2025.

Authored by Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen.

Summary

The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zhob, whereby their local/caste certificates were changed from Mandokhail to Lawoon. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to change or declare the petitioners' caste through a non-speaking administrative order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the impugned order was non-speaking, violated the principles of natural justice and due process, and that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the legal authority to determine or declare a citizen's caste. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 24th March 2022, and observed that questions regarding caste and civil status requiring evidence should be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction through a declaratory suit. The key principle laid down is that judicial or quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons for their decisions through speaking orders, and administrative authorities are not competent to conclusively determine or alter the caste or civil status of citizens without lawful authority and due process.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether a Deputy Commissioner has the legal authority to change or declare the caste of citizens in a quasi-judicial capacity?
Is an administrative order passed without disclosing the basis, evidence, or reasoning legally sustainable?
Does the determination of caste and civil status require a proper inquiry and adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction?
Does failure to provide an opportunity of hearing and notice prior to altering a local certificate violate the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process?

Laws & provisions referred

constitutional petitionlocal certificatecaste determinationnon-speaking ordernatural justicedue processadministrative authority

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN TAREEN, J.--- This petition carries the following prayer:

"A) To declare the order dated 24.03.2022 passed respondent No.2 being void and illegal and to set aside the same;

B. Direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to immediately restore the local certificates of petitioners being the local tribesmen of Mandokhail (Karezi);

C. Declare that the petitioners are local tribesmen of Mandokhail (Karezi) and respondents have got no authority to illegal declare them as Lawoon;

D. To restrain the official respondents in future to not cancel the local certificates of petitioners and not try to declare them as tribesmen of Lawoon tribe;

E. Private respondents be restrained from interference in the personal affairs of petitioners;

F. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of petitioners, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay."

2.Facts of the case are that the petitioners belong to local tribe Mandokhail (Karezi); after adopting due course of law, they applied their local certificates being the local inhabitants of District Zhob, they also brought attestation of the tribal head of Mandokhail (Karezi) tribe. After due process of law, local certificates of petitioners were issued by the attestation/signatures of different Chairman/Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners. Some of the private respondents alongwith some of their concerning relatives have duly signed upon the local certificate forms of some of the petitioners that they belong to the tribe of Mandokhail (Karezi) of Mouza Wala Akram. That the private respondents filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner Zhob (respondent No.2) for cancellation of local certificates of petitioners with the allegation that the petitioners do not belong to tribe of Mandokhail (Karezi) and they alleged that the petitioners belong to Lawoon tribe. In fact, Sardar Muhammad Ayub Khan is the tribal head of Mouza Wala Akram, as well as, of Mandokhail (Karezi), who personally approached the respondent No.2 and made verification that all the petitioners belong to Mandokhail (Karezi) tribe and they are not the Lawoon tribesmen. In this regard Sardar Muhammad Ayub Khan sworn an affidavit, as well as, elders/notables of Wala Akram also sworn affidavits which were annexed with the petitioners' applications.

It is the petitioners' case that a so-called enquiry was conducted by Assistant Commissioner Zhob/Chairman Local Committee Zhob (respondent No.3), who without investigation, illegally declared that the petitioners do not belong to Mandokhail (Karezi) tribe. However, the respondent No.2 initially not agreed with the said report of respondent No.3; but subsequently the respondent No.2 issued an order dated 6th February 2020, whereby he cancelled the local certificates of the petitioners by declaring them that they belong to Lawoon tribe. The petitioners challenged the said order in Constitutional Petition No.147/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 26th April 2021, by this Court with the following observations:

"4. As stated above, the Deputy Commissioner has powers to pass any order in respect of the local certificates issued in favour of the petitioners after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, but after providing full opportunity of hearing to the affected parties prior to passing any adverse order. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Deputy Commissioner had issued any notice etc. to the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order, as such, the same is not maintainable.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the petition and struck down the impugned order, however, the Deputy Commissioner would be at liberty to initiate proceedings after due notices to the petitioners and providing opportunity of hearing to them before an adverse order is passed."

3.In compliance, the respondent No.2 did verification of the local certificate of Zahir Shah (respondent No.4) and vide letter dated 3rd February 2022, verified his local certificateas Mandokhail. However, the respondent No.2 without intimation and calling the petitioners personally has passed an order dated 24th March 2022 whereby the petitioners' caste was changed from Mandokhail to Lawoon.

It is further case of the petitioners that in compliance of the judgment of this Court, the respondent No.2 only served notice upon only two persons and directed them to provide their documents, apart from above neither any petitioner was called by the respondent No.2 nor any notice for providing copies was issued. Moreover, on face-book ID of respondent No.9's nephew namely Saleem Khan's ID the impugned order of respondent No.2 was posted, then the petitioners came to know about the said order. Hence, the judgment of this Court was not complied with. That the local certificates of the petitioners and their other family members are withheld by the respondent No.2 from 2018 till filing of this petition.

It was contended that it is evident from Ration -Books of 1967 of predecessor-in-interests of petitioners that they are tribesmen of Mandokhail (Karezi) tribe, but cancellation of their local certificates and declaring them as tribesmen of Lawoon has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners, and this act of respondents has infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence, this petition with the prayer mentioned above.

4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking cancellation and declaration of illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zhob, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioners was changed as Lawoon on the ground that they were not members of the Mandokhail tribe.

The respondents Nos. 4 to 9 alleged that the petitioners obtained certificates claiming to be of the Mandokhail caste, whereas in reality, they belonged to the Lawoon tribe. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, after conducting a summary inquiry, held that the petitioners were not Mandokhail by caste and directed cancellation of the said certificates.

5.No doubt, Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees equality of citizens and serves as a foundation for anti-discrimination cases, as it affirms that all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection. It specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly addressed the scope of Article 25 to protect vulnerable groups from arbitrary or unreasonable classification.

Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees that no citizen can be discriminated against in public service appointments based on grounds such as caste, and Article 36 mandates the State to protect the legitimate rights and interests of minorities, including their representation in Federal and Provincial services. Similarly, Article 38 of the Constitution requires the state to promote the well-being of the people, regardless of caste, by providing basic necessities of life and preventing the concentration of wealth.

6.It is a settled principle of administrative law that every judicial or quasi-judicial authority must record reasons for its decision. Statutory power is to be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment. An executive authority must give reasons for its decision. Any action by an executive authority which is violative of these principles is liable to be struck down. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abid Hassan and others v. P.I.A.C. and others (2005 SCMR 25) has held:

"14. In his Treatise 'Discretionary Powers' which is Legal Study of Official Discretion D.J. Galligan has acknowledged that "the general principles that discretionary decisions should be made according to rational reasons means, (a) that there be findings of primary facts based on good evidence and (b) that decisions about the facts be made for reasons which serve the purposes of the statute in an intelligible and reasonable manner" According to the celebrated author, the actions which do not meet these threshold requirements are arbitrary, and may be considered a misuse of powers. (Emphasis provided).

7.In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order shows that it merely states the conclusion that "the petitioners are not Mandokhail by caste" without disclosing the basis, evidence, or reasoning leading to such a finding. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly a non-speaking order. In the case of Messrs MEDEQUIPS through Managing Partner v. The Commissioner Inland Revenue and 3 others (2024 PTD 1566) it has been held:

"7. The proposition of law is well settled that judicial or quasi-judicial forums should record reasons for their conclusions and decide the matters through speaking judgments and/or orders. This is to enable the aggrieved parties to set up their appeals, applications or petitions as well as enabling the higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction properly and to appreciate the controversies in correct perspective."

The right to a fair hearing and opportunity to defend oneself is a constitutional guarantee under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. No person can be condemned unheard, and every administrative authority is bound to act reasonably, justly, and transparently. In Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1689) , it has been held:

"7. Due process is a prerequisite that needs to be respected at all stratums. Right to fair trial is a fundamental right. In case of stringency and rigidity in affording this right, it is the function, rather a responsibility, of the court to protect this right so that no injustice and unfairness is done to anybody. The concept of natural justice is intended to restrain arbitrary actions within the bounds of upholding and protecting the supremacy of law. This fundamental principle is consistently and squarely applicable to the proceedings, whether judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, except where the law specifically and unambiguously excludes its application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The solitary pragmatic importance of the rule of natural justice is to prevent injustice and miscarriage of justice, and ensure that justice is not only done, but is also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done."

8.In the instant case, there is no record of a proper hearing or that the petitioners were confronted with the material relied upon. This omission vitiates. the entire proceedings. Given that the impugned order is both non-speaking and in violation of natural justice, it cannot be sustained. However, this Court is not substituting its own finding on the caste status of the petitioners, as such a factual determination lies within the jurisdiction of the competent authority upon a lawful and fair inquiry.

9.It is imperative that public authorities, particularly Deputy Commissioners and Revenue Officers, are not competent while sitting in administrative or quasi-judicial capacity to pass such orders affecting civil status, caste, domicile, or identity of citizens are reasoned, well-documented, and transparent, as these affect the dignity and social rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Such rights requiring pro and contra evidence can effectively be determined by courts of law by leading evidence, required to be settled by a proper court of law.

10.Accordingly, the proper course is to set aside the impugned order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner Zhob. Though the Deputy Commissioner is issuing/cancelling authority of local certificate, but determining the authority to change/declare one's caste has not been vested in him nor there is any law, which empowers him to make such declaration.

11.In view of what has been discussed above, the petition is allowed and the order dated 24th March 2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Zhob regarding declaration of petitioners' caste is set aside. However, the petitioners may approach the court of competent jurisdiction by filing declaratory suit, if so, advised. Order accordingly.

UN/154/Bal. Petition allowed.

***

Judges on this bench

Shaukat Ali Rakhshani190 judgments
Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen21 judgments