CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner approached respondents No. 2 and 3 to secure Fard for the record of land in question. Respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to decide the application of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an application before respondent No .1, who also did not decide the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide, the applications of the citizens without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's Cell, he submits that writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principal of law that is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the application of the 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 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Airport Support Service Vs. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmad Lateef Qureshi Vs. Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). In this view of the matter, let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No. 1, who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order, preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court, in case the petitioner have already filed application before respondent No. 1 and he has not decided the same till date and the petitioner has also not availed any other remedy against the grievance before nay higher forum till date. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 1 in the office at 11-00 am. on 14.9.2004, who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within one month till 14.10.2004 either himself or send the same to competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the application of the petitioner in terms of aforesaid direction of this Court preferably within one month till 14.10.2004. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.
6. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No. 1 for necessary action and compliance. Office is directed to provide copy of this order to the aforesaid law officer, for onward transmission to respondent No. 1 for necessary action and compliance. Keeping in view the allegation leveled by the petitioner in the contents of the petition, the learned law officer is directed to send copy of this order and the Constitutional petition to the Chief Secretary and the D.C.O. concerned, who are directed to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions to all the concerned to decide the applications of the citizens without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time. It is settled principle of law that nobody is above the law as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1975 SC 383). On account of he inaction of the public functionaries the workload of this Court is increasing day by day, therefore, the aforesaid authorities are directed to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned to decide the application of the citizens within reasonable time, which is their paramount duty by virtue of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act and by virtue of the mandate of the Constitution.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy "Dasti" on payment of usual charges.