CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. --- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner secured the land in-question from the respondents on lease. The respondents' determined rates of the lease vide order dated 22.1.2004. Thereafter respondents issued a notice dated 6.12.2004 to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding of the respondents. The petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No. 2 for extension of time to deposit the expenses.
Sarfraz Respondent No. 3 has filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, with regard to one acre of the land which is pending adjudication before the competent Court.
Munawar Hussain has also filed an appeal before the Administrator Respondent No.1 with regard to vires of the order dated 22.1.2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned notice is in derogation of mandatory provisions of Section 18(c) of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Agricultural Land, 1975, therefore, order dated 22.1.2004 as well as the notice are without lawful authority. He further urges that Sarfraz has filed a civil suit before the competent Court with regard to one acre of land not of the whole land, which was leased out by the respondents to the petitioner. Munawar Hussain Chohan has also filed an appeal with regard to one acre of land before Respondent No. 1.
He further urges that action of the respondents is also hit by section 18 of the Act as the impugned order was passed by the respondents without providing proper hearing to the petitioner.
3. Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman, Legal Advisor of respondents entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal before Respondent No. 1 against the order dated 22.1.2004, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable against the demand notice dated 6.12.2004 as the demand notice is based on order dated 22.1:2004 against which the petitioner has not availed any remedy. He further submits that appeal of Munawar Hussain for the piece of land in-question is pending adjudication before Respondent No. 1. He further submits that civil suit of Respondent No. 3 is also pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, Constitutional 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 admitted fact that civil suit of Respondent No. 3 is pending in the Civil Court. Similarly appeal of Respondent No. 4 is pending before Respondent No. 1. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. It is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the pendency of the civil suit and appeal before respondent No. 1 and Civil Court as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky vs. Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 S.C. 185). It is also admitted fact that basically the rates qua the land in-question was determined by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.1.2004. The petitioner has not availed any remedy against the said order before the competent appellate authority, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 S.C. 246). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the demand notice/show-cause notice as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 S.C. 360). Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is well within his rights to avail the alternative remedy before the appellate authority as well as to file reply of the demand notice to the respondents. Keeping in view the special features of this case in case the petitioner files an appeal before Respondent No. 1 against the order dated 22.1.2004 then he is directed to decide the same on merits and shall not dismiss the same as time-barred as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Aslam Trader's case (2000 SCM R 65). The petitioner is well within hierights as mentioned above file appeal before Respondent No. 1 against the order dated 22.1.2004 within a week. Similarly the petitioner is well within his rights to file reply of the demand notice to the respondents in accordance with law and who shall of-course proceed in the matter in terms of the law laid down in Mst. Shagufta Begum's case supra. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mien Qamar-uz-Za man, Legal Advisor of respondents who is directed to send the same to the concerned quarters for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. .