' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No.10896 of 2004 against the respondents with the direction not to harass the petitioner, which was subsequently, dismissed as withdrawn to avail proper remedy before the competent forum/competent Court by this Court vide order dated 9-9-2004. The petitioner has filed present writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and respondent No.1 D.I.-G.
Gujranwala may kindly be directed to take up the matter voiced in application dated 12-1-2005 and redressed the grievance of the petitioner and this Court also must take judicial notice of the situation and declare the very registration of case F.I.R No.393 of 2004 dated 22-6-2004, offence under Article 156-A of Police Order, 2002, based on malice, mala fide and victimization and direct the D.I.-G., Gujranwala to take urgent steps for the reinstatement of the petitioner in service."
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application before respondent No.1, who did not decide the same till date. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries 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. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R No.393 of 2004 is registered by the respondents at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala, offence under Article 156-A of Police Order, 2002, on 22-6-2004, which is liable to be quashed.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that the principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Hussain Bakhsh v.
Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others" (PLD 1970 SC 1). The second writ petition to the extent of harassm ent to the petitioner, is not maintainable in view of section 11 read with Order XXIII of C.P.C, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Pir Bakhsh's case (PLD 1987 SC 145)". This Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law and has no jurisdiction to take the role of Investigating Agency. The question of law qua quashment of F.I.R has been settled since 1945 by Privy Council in "Kh. Nazir Ahmad's case" (AIR 1945 PC 18). The dictum of Privy Council was approved by the Honourable Supreme Court after considering all the case-law on the subject in "Mst.
Shahnaz Begum's case" (PLD 1971 SC 677). Subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court has reaffirmed the view of Privy Council after considering all the case-law on the subject in "Brig. Imtiaz Ahmad's case" (1994 SCM R 2142), therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable, as the ratio of aforesaid judgments that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to quash the impugned F.I.R. At initial stages. Therefore, the prayer in the Constitutional petition to the extent of quashment of F.I.R. Has no force. It is also settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the applications of the citizens without fear, favour and nepotism 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 v. The Airport Manager, Karachi, Airport" (1998 SCM R 2268) and "Zainyar Khan v.
Chief Engineer C.R.B.C." (1998 SCM R 2419). Allegedly, the petitioner has filed an application before respondent No.1 on 12-1-2005, who did not decide the same till date.
6. In this view of the matter, let copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No.1, who is directed to pass an appropriate order 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, after verifying the record of the respondent, in case, the petitioner had already filed an application before respondent No.1, who did not decide the same till date and the petitioner has also not availed any other remedy before any forum against the grievance for which petitioner has filed application before respondent No.1 till date, preferably within 2 months after receiving the order of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 15-6-2005, who is directed either to decide the application of the petitioner himself or send the same to competent Authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law in terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of this writ petition along with all the Annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General who is directed to send the same to respondent No.1 for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to the aforesaid learned law officer for onward transmission to respondent No.1 for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.