' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed W.P. No.9546 of 1998 with the prayer that respondents be directed not to harass the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21-5-1998 wherein the petitioner was directed to provide list of defaulter to respondent No.2/Tehsildar Nosheran Virkan present respondent No.3. The petitioner in obedience of the direction filed application before respondent No.3 which is attached with the Constitutional petition as Annexure-C alongwith the list of defaulters. The respondents did not take any action on his application. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this petition with the same prayer i.e. That the respondents be directed not to harass the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that only duty of the petitioner is to collect the land revenue from the landowners of the village and deposit the same to the respondents. In case the landowners refuse to pay outstanding of the respondents to the petitioner then the petitioner has to point out to the respondent to proceed against the defaulters. The petitioner has submitted application before respondent No.3 who did not decide the same in connivance of the landowners of the village.
3. Learned law officer, under instructions, submits that petitioner is a defaulter himself as he has received revenue from the landowners of the village and did not deposit the same in the Government treasury in accordance with law and misappropriated the huge amount of revenue collected by him. He further submits that respondent No.3 has visited the village and approached the landowners of the village alongwith the petitioner who have stated in front of the petitioner that they had paid the revenue to the petitioner. The application of the petitioner wqs not decided on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner. The outstanding of the department against the petitioner is amounting to Rs.164,342, since 1984.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that petitioner has already deposited all the amounts which were received by petitioner from the landowners in the treasury.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. Without adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, I intend to decide whether the Constitutional petition is maintainable or not. In case the prayers of both the writ petitions are not in a juxta-position then it is crystal clear that petitioner has filed second writ petition qua the same subject-matter and relief. It is settled principle of law that principles of C.P.C.
Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Bakhsh's case (PLD 1970 SC 1). The second writ petition qua the same subject- matter and relief is not maintainable in view of section 11 of C.P.C. As the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh's case (PLD 1987 SC 145). It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner has not prayed a single word in the prayer clause that respondent No.3 be directed to decide the application of the petitioner.Itis also settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty bound to decide the applications of citizens without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s Airport Support Services' case (1998 SCM R 2268). In case the contentions of both the parties are put in a juxta-position then it appears that either the petitioner is at fault or public functionaries are at fault. Keeping in view this aspect of the case let a copy of the writ petition be sent to the D.C.O.
Concerned who is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter. In case the committee finds that any of the public functionaries is at fault then he is directed to proceed against them under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. In case the petitioner is found guilty then he is directed to proceed against him to recover the amount from the petitioner and also get a criminal case be registered against the culprits. It is pertinent to mention here that outstanding of the Government is not being recovered by the public functionaries either from the petitioner or the landowners since 1984. He is directed to complete this process within 3 months and submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned law officer is directed to notify this order to D.C.O. Concerned for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide a copy of this order to the learned law officer for onward transmission to D.C.O.
Concerned for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
Direction issued.