MUHAMMAD JAVED and others vs OFFICER INCHARGE, MARKET COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and anothers
This matter arises from petitions challenging a common order of the High Court concerning the alleged maladministration of a market committee constituted under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939. The core legal question involves determining the appropriate forum and mechanism for addressing administrative grievances and disputes regarding the shifting and allotment of a Subzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi. The Supreme Court held that administrative matters of this nature are appropriately supervised by correcting machinery such as the Ombudsman rather than the High Court or the Supreme Court in the ordinary course. Consequently, the Court referred specific questions regarding site plans, allotment procedures, and maladministration to the Provincial Ombudsman under section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1992, while maintaining the existing stay order until the Ombudsman's decision. The key principle laid down is that superior courts should decline to supervise internal administrative affairs of statutory bodies like market committees, relegating such factual and administrative controversies to the specialized jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
- Whether the site plan prepared after the High Court decision is just and lawful and can be allowed to be worked upon?
- Whether the procedures adopted by the market committee for effecting allotment and for shifting of the Subzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi are just, equitable and lawful?
- Whether there has been at any stage any maladministration involved in the exercises which are the subject-matter of the controversy?
- Section 7, Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939
- Section 14, Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939
- Section 9, Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1992
ORDER
1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---In all these petitions a common order the High Court has been challenged. Such order and the pleading together with other material placed before the High Court and in this Court speak for themselves. The upshot of the controversy, much of which appears to have trickled down through the print media, is alleged maladministration of the relevant market committee, constituted under section 7 of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, a creature of the Provincial Government of Sindh but occupying the status of the body corporate under section 14 of the same statute. This controversy has been hanging fire for a long time and evidently some offshoots thereof are still receiving the attention of the High Court. Needless to say that neither this Court nor the High Court, in the ordinary course of things, undertakes to supervise or -control an essentially administrative matter. The correcting machinery in that behalf lies elsewhere and one of those levels, and a substantially high one, is that of the Ombudsman. Hearing the matter at some length and upon issuance of necessary notices we are of the view that in addition to the general and suo motu jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, which would continue to vest with him in respect of whatever we are saying here, the following questions, inter alia, arise for a reference to the Ombudsman:--
(i) Whether the site plan prepared after the High Court decision dated 17-3-1999 is just and lawful and whether such can be allowed to be worked upon in the due course?
(ii) Whether any other site plans were subsequently prepared and if so to what effect and in what just, fair and lawful manner such can be given effect to?
(iii) Whether the procedures adopted by the market committee and/or other functionaries for effecting allotment and for shifting of the Subzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi from its present location to the new one are just, equitable and lawful?
(iv) Whether there has been at any stage, any maladministration involved in the exercise(s) which is/are the subject-matter of this controversy? If so, how best the same can be corrected and tilt rights of various persons be adequately safeguarded?
2. As already said the above questions, which we are referring to the Provincial Ombudsman under section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1992, are not the only questions which the Ombudsman would be free to deal or touch upon in the context of the present dispute and would remain free to exercise his suo motu powers generally in the matter, again in consonance with the same section. For so doing, also the parties would be free to place copies of all the proceedings either before the High Court or before this Court or any other cognate material considered appropriate. Correspondingly, because according to the learned counsel for the market committee the matter of shifting of the Subzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi is being delayed for one reason or the other, the learned Ombudsman would ensure that the dispute is sorted out and resolved as early as possible. Besides, even during the pendency of the dispute the Ombudsman would be free to direct partial shifting so as to ensure due workability of the scheme in the hands of the market committee. In so far as commencement of the proceedings before the Ombudsman are concerned such would take place within the next one week and parties may appear before the learned Ombudsman with or without the relevant material as to obtain an actual date of taking up of the proceedings, wherein no observation in the impugned order would be binding.
3. ' Subject as above necessary reference in terms of section 9 aforesaid is made to the learned Ombudsman. Stay to continue till the decision of the Ombudsman. Disposed of.