' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1478 and 4067 of 2005 in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are that respondent No,3 Mst. Zahoor Mai submitted an application to the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, praying that a direction may be issued to the concerned Union Council for recording birth entry of her son namely Gohar Abbas. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 7-10-2004 directed respondent No,1 District Public Safety Commission and Public Complaints Commission, Lodhran to process under section 44(g) of Police Order, 2002. After becoming aware of the above said order the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran for recalling the order, dated 7-10-2004. The learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide his order, dated 23-11-2004 directed the respondent No,1 to proceed in accordance with law. Vide meeting held on 17-2-2005, the District Public Safety Commission, Lodhran/respondent No,1 directed D.P.O., Lodhran to take legal action against the culprits. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the enquiry report submitted by respondent No,2 to respondent No,1 on the basis of which respondent No,1 vide its meeting held on 17-2-2005 directed the D.P.O. Lodhran to take legal action against the culprits may be declared illegal, unlawful, null, void and without jurisdiction and the same may be cancelled/quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application/complaint of respondent No,3 does not fall within the jurisdiction of Public Safety Commissioa because Public Safety Commission can inquire into the matter only against the police and not any other; that even otherwise the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 23-11-2004 had made an observation that respondent No,1 had no authority to order the sanction of mutation and that the enquiry report of respondent No,2 and action taken by the Public Safety Commission respondent No,1 in respect thereof are contradictory to each other because respondent No,2 had recommended the matter to the Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur while respondent No,1 directed D.P.O., Lodhran and both acted illegally.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for respondent No,3 has submitted that they do not oppose the prayer to the extent that Public Safety Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter but so far as the prayer of the petitioner that recommendation of respondent No,2 to the Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur is illegal, is concerned, they oppose this prayer and have submitted that as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Department, this Court rightly directed on (sic)-3-2005 to respondent No,5 Additional Director Anti- Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, to send a report and he has sent his report to this Court on 16-7-2005, wherein first six persons mentioned in para. 3 thereof were found guilty of preparation of a forged divorce deed while the persons mentioned at serial Nos.7 to 10 were found guilty of demand and receipt of illegal gratification and abuse of their authority to the detriment of complainant Mst. Zahoor Mai. They have supported the report of the Additional Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
6. Perusal of application of respondent No,3 Mst. Zahoor Mai reveals that it is a case of Anti- Corruption Department and not of Public Safety Commission. Therefore, this Court directed the respondent No,5 Additional Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, to send his report. He has sent his report to this Court on 16-7-2005, wherein after enquiry and the report of Finger Print Bureau, registration of case was recommended against 10 persons mentioned in para. No,3 thereof. First six persons were found guilty of preparation of a forged divorce deed while persons mentioned at serial Nos.7 to 10 were found guilty of demand and receipt of illegal gratification and abuse of their authority to the detriment of the complainant Mst. Zahoor Mai. Even otherwise under Article 199 of the Constituticn, only an aggrieved person can file a writ other than the writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto. A person cannot be said to be an aggrieved unless he has a IA right in the performance of statutory duty by a person performing function in respect of any right which he may have in relation to the performance of such functions.
From perusal of both the writ petitions, it reveals that the petitioners have not stated as to how they were aggrieved persons pressing for issuance of a writ of mandamus. People who come to Courts with a non-serious approach and without doing their homework while they endeavor to point out impressive issues, do not add anything in the positive sense for the benefit of the society and thus, they did not come with clean hands and deserve to be discouraged. Reliance in this behalf is placed on M. Ghulam Nabi Awan, Advocate v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others 2003 M LD 90.
7. In the light of the above circumstances, this writ petition and Writ Petition No,4067 of 2005 fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.