Haji Babu MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Other
This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the appellants. The appellants, members of the Board of Directors of the Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., challenged a directive issued by a Section Officer on behalf of the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan, Agriculture and Co-operative Department, instructing the bank to shift its office from Jinnah Road to a newly constructed building at Rani Bagh. The core legal question was whether the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan possessed the legal authority or power to direct the management of the Co-operative Bank to shift its office premises. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the counsel for the respondent conceded that the impugned letter did not constitute a command or binding order issued by the respondent to the bank. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment to reflect that the letter was not an order, satisfying the appellants and resolving the dispute.
- Whether a government department has the legal authority to direct a provincial co-operative bank to shift its office premises?
- Whether a letter from a Section Officer conveying a desire of a Secretary constitutes a binding administrative command or order?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court dated 5-10-1985, by which a Constitution Petition filed by appellants was dismissed. By that Constitution Petition appellants sought to challenge the order purportedly passed by the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan in the Agriculture and Co-operative Department, Quetta which was forwarded by the Section Officer of that department under letter dated 11-7-1984.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that appellants are members of the Board of Directors of Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is situated on Jinnah Road, Quetta. According to appellants, since the bank is functioning in rented premises, it was decided in a meeting of the Board of Directors held on 8-7-1984 that the building in which the rented premises are situated may be purchased. However, the Bank received a letter No. SQA(iv) 235-20-S/70-COOP, dated 11-7- 1984 from the Section Officer, Agriculture (IV) addressed to the General Manager; Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Quetta which may be reproduced hereunder:- "The General Manager, Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Quetta.
3. Subject:--SHIFTING OF OFFICE FROM JINNAH ROAD QUETTA TO NEW OFFICE BUILDING OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AT RANI BAGH SARIAB ROAD, QUETTA.
4. The undersigned is directed to state that the office of Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Quetta may be shifted to newly constructed building at Rani Bagh within a week under intimation to this department, as desired by the Secretary, Government of Baluchistan, Agriculture and Co- operative Department, Quetta.
5. Matter most urgent.
6. Sd/- Section Officer Agric(IV)
7. It was this directive contained in the above letter that was challenged by appellants in Constitution Petition No.91 of 1980, which was, however, dismissed by judgment dated 5-10-1984.
8. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider the question whether the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan, the first respondent, had any legal authority or power to direct the management of the Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Quetta to shift their office to a newly constructed building as stated in the impugned letter dated 11-7-1984.
9. At the hearing today, Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent states that on the plain reading of the impugned letter dated 11-7-1984 and also in view of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the Concise Statement filed by the first respondent in this Court, it is amply clear that there is, in fact, no order in the nature of a command, issued by the respondent to the appellants or the Bank to shift from the present premises of the first respondent mentioned in the aforesaid letter by the Section officer who addressed the letter does not amount to an order issued by the first respondent to appellants or the Bank. Learned counsel further states that the judgment of the High Court under appeal may be modified to the above extent.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants feels satisfied with the statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent but prays that the observations of the High Court as to the validity of the contents of the impugned letter may be set aside.