PLJ 1999 Lahore 947
Present: CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. Rana MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN--Petitioner
versus GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 25122/1998, decided on 26.1.1999.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
—Art. 199-Telephone connection-Non-installation of-Petitioner approached to Wafaqi Mohtasib for installation of telephone-Non-implementation of orders of Wafaqi Mohtasib^ffnt petition-President Order No. 1 of 1983 is that public functionaries are bound to obey direction of Wafaqi Mohtasib but action of respondents (Telephone Deptt.) is not in accordance with P.O. No. 1 of 83—Respondents (Telephone Department) failed to agitate the matter before High Court as well as before President of Pakistan-This brings case of petitioner in the area that respondents are not acting in good faith, therefore, action of respondents department is malafide-Writ petition accepted and respondent telephone department is directed to implement direction of Wafaqi Mohtasib in letter and spirit within 4 months. [Pp. 948 & 949] A & B
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Muhammad Raftque Shed, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26.1.1999.
JUDGMENT
The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner submitted an application before respondents for connection of telephone but the respondents malafide did not provide the same to the petitioner and did not decide the application of the petitioner in true prospects. The petitioner further states that the respondents sent even bill to the petitioner qua the telephone number but the telephone was not installed at the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was constrained by the circumstances and approached ( ^I <^-^£ ij>\Js ), who after providing opportunities to the respondents gave direction to the respondents vide order dated 7.9.98 in the following terms:-
"In view of the above, the Agency has been found guilty of maladministration. The General Manager, LTR(N) is, therefore, directed to provide telephone connection to the complainant within 30 days, after receipt of these findings, without the cost of telephone posts and D/wire. With these observations, this case is closed."
The petitioner further states that respondents did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order of ($* ' l-^ J k_5 ) before the President of Pakistan. He further states that the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib Ahla was not agitated by the respondents before this Court. He further alleged that the respondents have provided telephone connections in the locality to other persons and the petitioner is penalized only; that the petitioner knocked the door of tyt<.J2 '<j(jf ). The contents of para 9 of writ petition is as follows:-
2. The learned Legal Advisor for respondents contended that espondents did not file any appeal against the order of ( <}*•' v"^ J ^5 ). He further states that the petitioner has alternative remedy of file contempt petition before the (^ i._--^ij U i ) and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further stated that petitioner failed to bring on record any instance; that the respondents installed telephone connection to other persons in the locality, therefore, action of respondents is in good faith. It is further stated that for the purpose to supply connection to the petitioner; the respondentshave to installed 14 Poles i.e. policy matter and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of policy maker.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents and also heard the petitioner in person.It is admitted fact that the petitioner approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib who has given ample opportunities to the respondents to appear before him butthe respondents did not appear before him and the Wafaqi Mohtasib was constrained by the circumstances to give direction to the respondents toinstall telephone without the cost of telephone poles D/Wire. The respondents did not file any appeal against the said order. The respondents are public functionaries; they are bound to act within the framework of
Constitution and law and the respondents have no authority whatsoever under any provisions of the Constitution and law to frustrate the recommendation of Wafaqi Mohtasib unless and until the public functionaries have agitated the matter before the President of Pakistan or to file writ petition for setting aside the recommendation of Wafaqi Mohtasib. The respondents failed to agitate the matter before this Court as well asbefore the President of Pakistan. This brings the case of the petitioner in the area that the respondents are not acting in good faith, therefore, the action ofrespondents are malafide as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme ourt in the following judgments:-
Ghulam Mustafa Khar's case (PLD 1989 S.C. 26);
Zia-ur-Rehman 's case (PLD 1973 SC 490); and
(PLD 1974 SC 151).
The President Order No. 1 of 83 is that the public functionaries are bound to obey the direction of Waqafi Mohtasib but the action of respondents is not in accordance v/ith the P.O. No. 1 of 83.
4. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to implement the direction of Wafaqi Mohtasib in letter and spirit within four months.
(K.K.F.) Orders accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment