1995 M L D 966

[Lahore]
Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J
PERVEZ IQBAL RANA ---Petitioner
versus
PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION
through Managing Director and 3 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.15314 of 1994, decided on 29th December, 1994.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art.199---Pakistan Agricultural. Storage and Services Corporation (Staff) Services
Regulations, 1979, S.1---Constitutional petition for direction in the nature of quo warranto and
certiorari---Dismissed employees of Public Limited Company under Administrative Control of
Federal Government on charges of corruption were directed by the Prime Minister to be
re-instated--Petitioner a Grade-16 Officer serving in such limited company and claiming to be
the President of Officers' Association (Registered) challenging legality and vires of the -directive
of Prime Minister and praying High Court for issuing of direction in the nature of quo
warranto---Locus standi---Person seeking judicial review of administrative action or
quasi-judicial action must show that he has a direct personal interest in the act which he
challenges before his prayer for review of administrative action is entertained---Such person
would have no standing to approach the Court unless he is interested in and, effected adversely
by the decision of which he seeks review and such interest must be of a personal and not of an
official nature---Constitutional petition having been filed by a person who was not personally
affected by the order/direction in question, was not competent in circumstances.---[Locus
standi].
The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha-Behra Bus Service, Sargodha and others
PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437; Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd.,
Tokht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244; University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v.
Ch. Sardar Ali 1992 SCMR 1093; M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,
Cabinet -Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1024; State
Life Insurance Employees' Federation of Pakistan, Karachi v. Federal Government of Pakistan
through Secretary, Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1341; Mrs. Anisa Rehman v.
P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR 2232; Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager,
Government Transport Service, Lyallpur v. The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through its
Secretary and others PLD 1964 Lah. 743; Anjuman Araian, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others
PLD 1982 SC 308 and Karam Hussain v. Daily Mashriq and 2 others 1992 PLC 136 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
---Art.199---Administrative decision---Re-instatement of employees of public limited company
on the direction of Prime Minister in .spite of such employees had been dismissed on charges of
corruption---Validity---Prime Minister being Head of the Government and Public Limited
Company being under administrative control of Federal Government there was nothing wrong if
directives were issued by the Prime Minister of the nature in question-Public Limited Company
itself having no objection to reinstatement of such employee (who had been dismissed on
charges of corruption) petitioner a mere Grade-16 officer had no locus standi to object to
reinstatement of such employees---Service relationship of such company were governed by the
principle of "Master and Servant" which includes in its ambit principle of hire and fire, therefore,
re-instatement of such employees could not be objected to in circumstances---Employees in
question, having not yet taken charge of their assignments, Constitutional petition for directions
in the nature of certiorari and quo warranto was premature and misconceived.
Hafiz Tariq Nasim for Petitioner.
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan.
ORDER
M/s. Abbas Khatak and Maqbool Hussain Sadiq respondents Nos.3 and 4, in this writ petition
were working as Deputy General Managers in Passco, Lahore which is a Public Limited
Company with its. Administrative Control vesting in the Federal Government of Pakistan.
Services of respondent No.3 were terminated in the year 1983, whereas that of respondent No.4
in 1988. Various departmental appeals and representations filed by them seeking their
reinstatement in service did not succeed and ultimately in its resolution dated 30-11-1994 it was
decided by the Board of Directors of the company that the said respondents cannot be reinstated
as they were proven corrupt. The respondents approached Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is the
Chief Executive of the Federal Government, who issued directives dated 5th and 8th of
December, 1994 to reinstate them. Chairman of the Passco who is a Federal Secretary vide
memorandum dated 26-12-1994 directed Managing Director Passco, Lahore to implement the
above-referred directives vide the fax message dated 20-12-1994 reproduced below:
FAX MESSAGE
MOST IMMEDIATE.
No. F-2-31/84-Food-II,
Government of Pakistan
Ministry of Food, Agri. & Livestock.
ISLAMABAD,
The 20th December, 1994.
Maj.-Gen. Wasif Ali,
Managing Director,
PASSCO, Billaur Palace,
29-McLeod Road, Lahore.
Subject: REINSTATEMENT OF M/S. ABBAS KHAN KHATTAK, EXDGM AND
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, EX-DGM (AUDIT), PASSCO IN SERVICE.
Dear Sir,
I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 5-12-1994 and
No.F-2-8/88-Food-II, dated 8-12-1994, on the above subject and to say that the Prime Minister
Secretariat has directed to implement the orders of the Prime Minister's of Pakistan without
further delay and furnish Charge Assumption Reports of the incumbants direct to the Prime
Minister's Secretariat by addressing the same to Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Joint Secretary (A), Prime
Minister's Secretariat, Islamabad, under intimation to this Ministry.
2. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
Yours faithfully,
(Sd.)
(MUHAMMAD YOUNAS),
Section Officer.
Copy forwarded to:
(1) Mr. Abbas Khan Khattak, H. No.4 Sector L-1, Phase-III, Hayatabad, Peshawar.
(2) Mr. Maqbool Hussain Siddiqui, H.No.62-B, Sector No.2, Khayabane Sir Syed Rawalpindi.
They are directed to report to PASSCO for duty under intimation to Minfal & P.M. Secretariat.
Copy also forwarded to the Prime Minister's Secretariat (Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, J.S. (A), with
reference to his U.O. 6(296)/E/94/DSAI dated 15-12-1994).
(Sd.)
(MUHAMMAD YOUNAS),
SECTION OFFICER.
The company hence intends to reinstate respondents Nos. 3 and 4 forthwith.
2. Mr. Pervez Iqbal Rana, who is a Purchase Officer of the company and is serving in Grade-16,
claiming himself to be the President PASSCO Officers' Association (Registered) Pakistan, has
filed this Constitutional petition to challenge the legality and vires of the above-referred
directives/order, has further prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondents
Nos.3 and 4 asking them to show the authority under which they have obtained directive of
re-instatement of their service and, the respondent No.2 to show authority under which he has
assumed the powers of the Board of Directors. It has further prayed that respondents Nos.l and 2
may be directed to act strictly in accordance with law and not to yield to any political pressure.
This writ petition was placed before me on 28-12-1994 on which date copy of the same was
handed over to Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, learned Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan to
seek instructions in the matter and assist this Court today when case has again been taken up.
Preliminary arguments have been heard.
3. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that services of
respondents Nos.3 and 4 had been terminated on the allegations of corruption. The Board of
Directors, which is the final Appellate Authority had dismissed their appeal/representation for
re-instatement, therefore, neither the Prime Minister of Pakistan, nor respondent No.2 had lawful
authority to direct their re-instatement in service, and, therefore, the impugned order/directives of
re-instatement of service of respondents Nos.3 and 4 are illegal and are without lawful authority.
On my query, learned counsel has admitted that PASSCO is a public limited company, which
has been incorporated und: r the Companies Act, and is governed by its Article of Association.
He has further conceded that the said Company has not been created under any Statute. I have
asked the learned counsel to point out as to what are the service rules which govern the service
relationship of the employees vis-a-vis the company? He stated that it is the Pakistan
Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (STAFF) Services Regulations, 1979, which
govern the service relationship of the employees of the Company which are not statutory in
nature.
4. Maj. Muhammad Akram, Managing Director PASSCO has appeared on behalf of respondent
No.1 and has stated that the said respondent has no objection to re-instate respondents Nos.3 and
4.
5. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan who has appeared on
behalf of the respondents has contended that the petitioner being Grade-16 employee has no
locus standi to file the present writ petition inasmuch as he has no personal interest in the matter
and further that no vested right of his shall be adversely affected by implementation of impugned
directive/orders; that Prime Minister of Pakistan being Chief Executive of the Federation and the
PASSCO being under the administrative control of the Federal Government as per Entry No.31
of Rules of Business, 1973, the directive issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and further
order passed by the Chairman PASSCO, who is also the Chairman of Board of Directors in
whom the overall management of the Company vests are valid and hence respondents Nos. 3 and
4 are entitled to be re-instated and that service relationship between the company and its
employees is that of Master and Servant therefore, decision of the company to re-instate its own
employees even under a directive is not amenable to exercise of judicial review by this Court.
Elaborating the above argument further learned counsel contends that as the PASSCO has no
objection to the re-instatement of respondents Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner cannot have any cause
.of grievance to take exception to impugned directives/intended decision and to challenge the
same before this Court. As regards the prayer for grant of writ of quo warranto, learned counsel
has contended that as yet respondents Nos.3 and 4 have not been re-instated and as they are not
holding any post so far, writ petition to the above extent is misconceived and is without any
actionable cause of action. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied upon the
following cases:
(i) The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha-Behra Bus Service, Sargodha (2) The
Regional Transport Authority, Lahore and (3) The Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore PLD
1958 SC (Pak..) 437.
(ii) Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others
PLD 1975 SC 244.
(iii) University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali 1992 SCMR 1093.
(iv) M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of
Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1024.
(v) State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan, Karachi v. Federal Government of
Pakistan through Secretary Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1341.
(vi) Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR 2232.
(vii) Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur v.
The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through its Secretary and others PLD 1964 Lah. 743
and
(viii) Anjuman Araian, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others PLD 1982 SC 308.
6. In reply to the aforementioned arguments Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate, learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that as respondent No.1 is bound to act in accordance with law, therefore,
the petitioner has locus standi to file this writ petition and even if the service. relationship of the
employees of Corporation is governed by the principle of "Master and Servant" this petition is
competent and the directive issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan is illegal and without a
lawful authority. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the
following cases:
(i) Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others
PLD 1975 SC 244;
(ii) Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR 2232
(iii) Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur v.
The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through its Secretary and others PLD 1964 Lah. 743
and
(iv) Karam Hussain v. Daily Mashriq and 2 others 1992 PLC 136.
7. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, have perused
the record and have also gone through the relevant case-law on the subject. In case of "Tariq
Transport Co., Lahore" (supra) while deciding the question of locus stand of a person to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, at pages 452, 454, 465 and 497 of the report it has been
held that it is basic principle that a person seeking judicial review of administrative or
quasi-judicial action must show that he has a direct personal interest in the act which he
challenges before his prayer for review is entertained. He does not have standing to sue unless he
is interested in and affected adversely by the decision of which he seeks review. His interest
must be of a personal and not of an official nature. An application for an order of certiorari can
only be made by an aggrieved party and not merely be one of the public, or in the case of an
application for an order of mandamus it is an established rule that the applicant must show that
there resides in himself a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom
the mandamus is sought. Where the Provincial Transport Authority was admitted by the High
Court as a party to a writ petition preferred by a private party against the Regional Transport
Authority, while the former had no interest in the matter which was the subject-matter in the
petition, and the Provincial Transport Authority after being made a party, itself substantially
assumed the role of a petitioner against the Regional Transport Authority it is held that the High
Court could not go into the. issues raised by the Provincial Transport Authority and as such the
Court is not competent merely on information of its own knowledge to commence certiorari
proceedings or other proceedings of a similar nature under Article 170 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In case of "Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager,
Government Transport Service, Lyallpur" (supra) at page 755 of the report it has been held as
under:---
"As regards the orders about the re-instatement of Khalifa Afzal Hussain and his posting as
District Manager, Lyallpur by the Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner has no locus standi
to object against them. This part of the case of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed
on this short ground alone."
In case of "Anjuman Araian, Bhera" (supra) while deciding the question of locus standi of a
person to challenge the transfer of area by Chairman Allotment Committee or Municipal
Committee, Bhera, it has been held that party acting pro bono publico possesses no locus standi
to call in question transfer of property in favour of a third party unless it is shown to have
personal interest in the corpus of the property to which the law attaches some sanctity. In case of
"Salahuddin and 2 others" (supra) at page 256 of the report it has been held that a public limited
company created by any statute and the Governmental control thereof is limited only by certain
regulations, such company is not a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of
the Federation, etc. and hence is not amenable to the issuance of a writ under clause 2(a)(i)
Article 201 of the Constitution and Article 199 of the Constitution, except a writ of quo warranto
against the Directors of the Company who were holding public offices. In case of "University of
the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others" (supra), it has been held that Efficiency and Discipline Rules
made by the Chancellor of the University are not statutory rules and as such Constitutional
petition complaining the violation thereof is not maintainable. In case of "M.H. Mirza" the
service regulations framed by the C.DA. administrative control whereof also vests in the Federal
Government have been held not to be enforcible in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of
this Court. In case of "State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan, Karachi" (supra) it
has-been held that without violation of Fundamental rights of a citizen, a petition under Article
184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is not maintainable before Supreme
Court. In case of "Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.IA.C. and another" (supra) it has been held that PIAC
Rules, 1958 framed by the Federal Government under section 29 of the Pakistan International
Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 are not statutory rules and as such the employees of P.I.A. are
governed by the Principle of "Master and Servant". However, as the ssaid Corporation is creation
of statute, the violation of principle of natural justice can attract the jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Distinguishing
feature of this case is that it is a case of statutory corporation and not a case of public limited
company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, has its own Articles of Association
and has not been created by any Statute. In case of "Karam Hussain" (supra), where the dispute
was as to whether a writ petition is competent against a Private Limited Company all shares
whereof vests in National Press Trust which in turn is controlled by Federal Government under
the provisions of National Press Trust Ordinance, 1960, it has been held by this Court that the
writ petition is competent. This case also pertains to a company created by a Statute and the
learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan has pointed out that the judgment referred to above
is challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The view taken in this judgment is
also contrary to the one taken in case of "Salahuddin and 2 others" (supra). Hence, the judgment
besides being distinguishable on facts, view taken therein, being contrary to view taken by the
Supreme Court in "Salahuddin's" case, cannot be followed.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Grade-16 employee of PASSCO, which is a Public Ltd.
Company. It is neither a statutory body, nor is it performing its function in relation to affairs of
the Federation of Federal Government/Provincial Government, nor is it a Local Authority. The
petitioner does not have a personal interest in the matter as he cannot compete for appointment in
question, therefore, keeping in view the law declared in cases of "Tariq Transport Co.", "Mian
Muhammad Abdullah" and "Anjuman Araian, Bhera" (supra) has no locus standi to file this
Constitutional petition.
9. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding legality of
the directives issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the order passed by the respondent
No.2, suffice it to say that the Prime Minister of Pakistan is Head of the Government of the
Federation and the PASSCO being under the Administrative Control of the Federal Government,
there is nothing wrong if directives are issued by the Prime Minister in the nature in question. If
at all some body could have objected to the said directives it was the PASSCO, respondent No.1,
who is ready to implement the same and is not aggrieved of it. Similarly, respondent No.2 being
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, order passed by him as well as with a
lawful authority, which order is intended to be complied with forthwith. Therefore, the petitioner
is not possessed of any actionable cause of grievance to challenge the legality of the
aforementioned directive/order and further intended orders which may be passed by the
Company. The service relationship of the employees of the Corporation is governed by the
principle of "Master and Servant", which includes in its ambit principle of "hire and fire", and,
there for, if the company wishes to re-instate its ex-employees, may be under the order of Head
of the Government or Chairman of the Board, no other employee of the same Company has any
locus standi or right to object to the said action. The respondent No.1 is public limited and has
not been created by a statute and prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto being premature and
misconceived, remedy of judicial review, as prayed for, is not available to the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, I see no force in this petition, hence, the same is dismissed in limine.
A.A./P-257/L Petition dismissed.