ORDER ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
The above titled eleven Constitutional petitions, Involving identical controversy regarding claim of the petitioners relating to' their respective shops in new Sabzi Mandi, on Karachi Hyderabad Super Highway, are being disposed of by the Single Judgment.
2. On 9.12.2005 when these petitions were lastly fixed before the Court. While adjourning these cases for today, we had clearly observed that no further adjournment will be allowed. However, some of the counsel have still chosen to remain absent.
3. Common facts relating to these petitions are that the petitioners claiming themselves to be the allottees in possession of their respective shops, as detailed in each petition, have filed these petitions -for the reliefs that they shall not be dispossessed from their respective shops and the respondents be further restrained from creating any third party interest therein. To fortify their respective claims, the petitioners have fifed documents*, showing allotment of different shops in their favour, possession orders, site plans and mashirnamas relating to delivery of possession etc. Apart from it, some of the petitioners have also filed photocopies of certain payment challans showing deposit of amount in bank, which according to them, was paid towards the costs of their shops. , However, the number of petitioners, who have filed such payment challans, is quite nominal.
4. In rebuttal to the claim of the petitioners, respondent No.2 Market Committee Karachi. New Sabzi Mandi, Super Highway, has submitted its reply, wherein they have categorically denied the claim of the petitioners. For details, relevant paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6 of the counter- affidavit are reproduced as under:
3. That as regards paras-3 and 4, it is submitted that the petitioners be put to strict proof. Further, it is submitted that under the Notification dated 4.9.T994 issued by the Government of Sindh, whereby the respondent No.1 was pleased to notify policy regarding allotment of plots of all categories and sizes in New Fruit and Vegetable Market, Super Highway, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the "said Notification" and "said Mandi" respectively. As per the said Notification, only the Commission Agents having License of the respondent No. 2 continuously for last three years commencing from the date of the said Notification were declared as entitled for allotment in the said Mandi. (Photo-copy of said notification' is submitted herewith as Annexure-R), The petitioners are also not entitled to any relief in view of the order passed in Suit No. 271/1994, by this Honorables Court on 02.6.1994. Photocopy of order is submitted as Annexure-R/1. -
4. As regards the contents of para-5 of the petition, it is submitted that allotments as contended by the petitioners were not made by the Allotment Committee, not by the Standing Committee. The allotment Orders were obtained by the petitioners by manipulation and have been signed by un- authorized persons and officers, who had no legal and lawful authority 'to issue Allotment orders and deliver such possessions, which renders the Allotment Orders as void, having been issued without lawful authority. Not only so, the Allotment Orders were also issued' in defiance of the decision of the learned Ombudsman. Sindh, announced on 24.6.2000 passed on the reference made by the Honorables Supreme Court of Pakistan, in certain petitions as well as on the reference made by this Honorables Court, It is. Further submitted that the Allotment Orders filed by the petitioners were issued by the unauthorized persons, without lawful authority, in respect of the plots reserved for growers as per Notification dated 4.9.1994. Not only so, in-fact the plots for which the petitioners had obtained allotment orders mala fidley and by manipulation were .Already allotted to Growers in Computer Balloting held on 5.6.1999. The Allotment Orders filed by the petitioners- were issued to them without cancellation of the Allotments, made through Computer Balloting, which amounts to double allotment and over lapping. The computer balloting was held in according with the layout plan, prepared for the said Mandi which was submitted in Honorables Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as before learned Ombudsman, Sindh. The Ombudsman had declared the layout plans as workable. Photo Stat copies of relevant computer balloting list and the list published in Daily "Dawn" , English, Karachi and comparative list shown the above lapping of plots are submitted as Annexures-R/2,R/3 and R4 respectively.
5. That the contents of para-6 of the petition are vehemently denied, In fact the old Sabzi Mandi located on University Road, Karachi was shifted to New Mandi on 16.4.2001, while the Allotment Orders and Possession Orders filed with the petition are of December, 2001 and the dates falling thereafter, thus the contention of the petitioners is belied from the documents filed by them.
6. That as regards para-7, it is submitted that the allotment orders were issued by un-authorized persons without lawful authority, as already submitted in para-5 above, thus the terms and conditions of void Allotment have no bearing in the eyes of law Para-7 is thus, replied accordingly.
5. To fortify their submissions that the claim of the petitioners regarding allotment of shops in the New Sabzi Mandi is fraudulent and manipulated, respondent No. .2 has also placed on record computerized list of the allottees of the shops in New Sabzi Mandi and other relevant documents referred in the counter-affidavit.
6. In the rejoinder to such counter affidavit filed in some of these petitions, the petitioners have reiterated their claim in respect of shops allegedly allotted to them. They have also filed some more /documents regarding payments of license >fee etc. For running their businesses in these shops.
7. Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada, learned counsel for petitioners in some of these petitions, has contended that all the petitioners' are lawful allottees of their respective shops in the new Sabzi Mandi on payment of necessary charges and photocopies of such allotment orders alongwith possession orders and site sketch have been produced by* them with their petitions. The necessity for filing of these petitions has arisen for the petitioners only due to publication of news-items in daily "Jang"
Karachi dated, 12th February 2002 and daily "Khabrain" Karachi dated 27th February 2002 to the effect that in the first news-item it was mentioned that the Governor of Sindh Province has ordered cancellation of all allotments which were made in violation of the rules/while as per other news- item it was mentioned that within four days "Abadkar" will be allotted shops in the new Sabzi Mandi.
He contended that such news clippings have created genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that through underhand tactics they will be deprived of their lawful entitlement of shops, for* which allotment orders have been issued and possession has also been delivered to them by the authorized officer of the Market Committee Karachi. Learned counsel further contended that appearance of such news-items' in the news papers amount to violation of principles of natural justice as implementation of these orders will result in denial, of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further contended that even where no particular provision of hearing is provided under any statute, still on the principles of natural-justice, the petitioners are entitled for an opportunity of hearing before any action, adverse to their interests, is taken by the respondents; Mr. Mujib Pirzada also made reference of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act and contended that any omnibus order of cancellation of allotments, without assigning any reasons for it, will also be in violation of such provision of law, thus, liable to be struck down by this Court. To fortify his submissions learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases:-
1. Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. Piac -and another (1994 SCMR 2232)
2. Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust v. Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others (2005 SCMR 678) Both the above cited cases expound the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem".
8. Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada lastly contended that he will be satisfied with the disposal of these petitions with the observations that the respondents shall act strictly in accordance with law and prower due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before any action is taken against them.
9. Other learned counsel representing the petitioners in these connected petitions, who are present in Court have adopted the arguments of Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada.
10. Conversely Mr. Ahmed Pirzada Addl. A.G, Sindh contended that respondent No, 1 has adopted the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in their counter-affidavit, which clearly goes to show that on the basis of manipulated and fraudulent documents, petitioners are trying to setup their claim over the shops of new Sabzi Mandi. In this regard, he made particular reference to the above reproduced Paras of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.-,
2. He further made reference to the judgment dated 14.6.1999 of this Court in Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-466/98, D-821/98 D- 1076/98, D-1279/98 D- 1511/98, D-1708/98 D-1709/98 and D-1710/98 to. Show that number of Constitutional petitions, involving identical controversy, as agitated in these petitions were earlier dismissed by this Court, inter alia with the observations that the factual controversy raised therein cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 1*99 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thus, the petitions were not maintainable in law.
Learned Addl. A.G. Also brought to our notice the judgment of Honorables Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Javed & others v. Officer, incharge Market Committee Government of Sindh Karachi and another (2000 CCMR 1615), to show that above discussed judgment of this Court dated 14.6.1999 was not only maintained . By the Honorables $upreme Court, but further1 the Honorables Supreme Court, taking notice of mal-administration, corruption and nepotism etc. In the affairs of new Sabzi Mandi Market, Karachi Hyderabad Superhighway, had issued directions to the Provincial Ombudsman in the following terms: "This controversy has been hanging fire for a long time and evidently some offshoots thereof are still receiving the attention of the High Court. Needless to say that neither this Court nor the High Court, in the ordinary course of things, undertakes to supervise or control and essentially ' administrative matter. The correcting machinery in that behalf lies elsewhere and one of those levels, and a substantially high one, is that of the Ombudsman. Hearing the matter at some length and upon issuance of necessary notices we are of the view that in addition to the . General and suo motu jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, which would continue to vest with him in respect of whatever we are saying v here, the following questions, inter, alia, arise for a reference to the Ombudsman:
(i) Whether the site plan prepared after the High Curt decision dated 17.3.1999 is just and lawful and whether such can be allowed to be worked upon in due course?
(ii) Whether any other site plans were subsequently prepared and if so to what effect and in what just, fair and lawful manner such can be given effect to?
(iii) Whether the procedures adopted by the market committee and/or other functionaries for effecting allotment and for shifting of the Sabzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi from its present location to the new one are just, equitable and lawful?
(iv) Whether there has been at any stage, any mal-administration involved in the exercise (s) which is/are the subject- matter of this controversy? If so, how best the same can be corrected and the rights of various persons be adequately safeguarded?
As already said the above questions, which we are referring to the Provincial Ombudsman under section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1992, are not the only v questions, which the Ombudsman would be free to deal to touch upon in the context of the present dispute and would remain free to exercise his suo motu powers generally in the matters, again in consonance with the same section. For so doing, also the parties would be free to place copies of all the proceedings either before the High Court before this Court, or any other cognate material considered appropriate. Correspondingly, because according to the learned counsel for the market committee the matter of shifting of the Sabzi Mandi/Fruit Mandi is being delayed for one reason or the other, the learned Ombudsman would ensure that the dispute is sorted out and resolved as early as possible. Besides, even during the pendency of the dispute the Ombudsman would* be free to direct partial shifting so as to ensure due workability of the scheme in the hands of the market committee'. Insofar as commencement of the proceedings before the Ombudsman are concerned such would take place within the next one week and parties may appear before the learned Ombudsman with or without the relevant material as to Obtain an actual date of taking up of the proceedings, Wherein no observation in the impugned order would be binding."
10. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, Addl. A.G. Sindh, further made reference to the detailed decision of the Provincial Ombudsman, in terms of the above-referred judgment of the Honorables Supreme Court, to fortify his assertions regarding rampant mal-administration and corruption in the affairs of Market Committee, particularly, with reference to the bogus allotments of shops, he made reference to Para 64 of such decision of the Provincial Ombudsman, which reads as under: "64. I had no mind to disturb the mode, manner or procedure for allotment of plots chalked out by the committees of Ministers or Market Committee to different persons. However after going through ocular as well as documentary evidence before me I could not but express my grave concern to the success of the project if it is left into the hands of incompetent & corrupt Ministers & inefficient/dishonest officials of the v Government. I therefore consider it my profound duty to firstly lift the veil of fraud, corruption & favouritism practiced by them & other malpractices committed by them, some of which are as under:
1. No feasibility studies were conducted, a project like this requires a team of experts like Town Planner. Architect, Civil Engineer, Economist etc.
2. No Town Planner was appointed which is a mandatory requirement.
3. No lay out plan of the project was sent, to KDA for approval. Entire construction is unauthorized under the Town Planning & Building Control Laws.
4. Embezzlement, financial bungling & irregularities run into crore of rupees as evident from audit reports for the years 1994-1995 & 1995-D'Andre other record. No audit of the project/market committees has been carried out since 1996.
5. Loan of Rs.' 4 crore from Asian Development Bank was allowed to be lapsed due to neglect & inefficiency of the officials.
6. Water supply is inadequate.
7. Electric installations & the entire electric system requires complete overhauling .
8. Sewerage line is at a distance of 2 kilometers from the site. The present size of sewerage, line of 12' dia is inadequate.
9. 202 plots/shops were allotted to 2 or more members of Falahi Anjuman the petitioners.
10. The first Minister's Committee arbitrarily and in violation of notification of Government of Sindh and High Court Order, allotted 490 plots to Falahi Anjuman and 136 plots to People Welfare Society.
11. During the four Minister's Committee (*) headed by Mr. Murad AN Shah, Minister for Agriculture, contract of 1 billion for construction of shops was awarded to the Project's own consultant. The common denominators in the first and the fourth Minister's Committees were Mr. Murad Ali Shah, Minister & Dr. Badruddin Soomro, Director General/Secretary Agriculture.
12. The second Minister's Committee fixed the cost of utility plots reserved for cold storage, restaurants, canteen etc. From Rs. 3000/- per square yd, to Rs. 500/--per sq. Yd. Similarly, the price of plots was fixed by them at Rs. 125/- per sq. Yd. Ft. Which was far below the present market rate of shops. Subsequently the second Minister's Committee has allotted 3.747 sq. Yds. Of land to Mr. Ali Raza Shah landlord and 3,626 sq. Yds. Of land to M/s. Allah Bux and other Abadqars at the rate of Rs. 640/- per sq. Yd. Similarly, 1650/- per sq. Yd. Of land was allotted to Nasir Qureshi and 240 sq.
Yds. To Khursheed Agha at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. Yds. This was done under a well- planed scheme, arbitrarily, dishonestly & in violation of notified instruction from the growers/new comer's quota. The allotments were much below the market rate for commercial plots.
13. The second Minister's Committee fixed the rent of Canteen and Restaurant at Rs. 4,00 per sq. Ft.
Per month and for 35 shops at Re. 1.00 per sq. Ft. The area of shops of the plots was increased from 48 sq. Ft, to 80 sq. Ft.
14. The second Minister's Committee had allowed construction of'35 shops within the compulsory 20 ft, open space which was to be left out. This was done so as to allot these shops to persons of their choice at a very prominent place.
15. The market committee has failed to repay the loan or any part thereof to the Asian Development Bank and also the does of KDA, KESC, KW & .SB and Board of Revenue running into crore of rupees.
16. The Consultant of the market committee Mr. A. Q. Alvi was awarded contract for construction of the project of the value of Re. 1.00 billion. His tender i.e.. The tender of Dr. Alvi Consortium was accepted after the due date.
17. Contract for construction was notified on BOT/Self-financing basis but Qr. Alvi Consortium were awarded Rs. 20.00 milions as mobilization charges without Bank Guarantee. More than one crore are due & payable by them as per record.
18. M/s. SACO Consultants for electrical ' work, were also awarded contract for internal and external electrification.
19. Two envelop system as per the byelaws of Pakistan Engineering ' Council were not followed.
20. Allotment in respect of 202 plots/shops was made by the Falahi Anjuman in violation of High Court Order dated 2,6.1994.
21. Highest bid of market fees for Rs. 4.00 million at an auction was. Not accepted because of political consideration."
11. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, Addl. A.G. Sindh vehemently contended that after the detailed decision of the Provincial Ombudsman, magnifying all the affairs of the' Market Committee, again a game of fraud and manipulation, has been managed by the petitioners in connivance with some officers of Market Committee, and the present Constitutional Petitions are outcome of such conspiracy, so that illrgotten- gains may be protected through Court proceedings, and the legitimate claimants/allottees of the shops may again be dragged into a fresh round of litigation, thereby depriving them of their claims for an indefinite period, In the end learned Addl. A.G. Also made reference to several .Other documents filed alongwith the counter-affidavit on: behalf of respondent No. 2, which according to him, clearly prove fraudulent and manipulated nature of the allotments and other documents produced by the petitioners > in support of their respective claims.
12. We have carefully Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
13. One of the important documents available in the record is the detailed decision of Provincial Ombudsman (Justice (Retd.) Haziqul Khairi) dated 24th June 2000, which was given by him in terms of directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of MUHAMMAD JAVED (Supra). This decision which, spreads over 68 typed pages, reflects the serious efforts made by the Provincial Ombudsman in unearthing the whole complexes situation relating to shifting of old Sabzi Mandi from University Road Karachi and its establishment of Karachi Hyderabad Super Highway, as new Sabzi Mandi Karachi. Learned Ombudsman has taken pains to examine each and every relevant aspect in this regard in a Chronological order. He has not only given the details of maladministration and corrupt practices in the affairs of Market Committee/New Sabzi Mandi in Para 64 of his decision (reproduced above) but in Para 66 of his decision he has also given detailed suggestions/directions/recommendations for future line of action in the matter, which read as under: "66. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has specifically referred to me the question as to how best maladministration of this market committee project can be corrected and how the rights of various persons be adequately safeguarded. Keeping in mind all aspects of the case and surrounding circumstances. I do thereby give directions and make recommendations as under:
(i) constitute a standing committee to look after, manage and supervise all the affairs of the new sabzi mandi, Karachi presently under the so- called Market Committee Karachi/Department * . Of Agriculture Govt, of Sindh. The affairs of defunct Market Committee/Project shall exclusively vest in the standing committee till after one year of the shifting of sabzi mandi at its new site.
(ii) The Stranding Committee shall comprise (i) Chief Secretary Govt, of Sindh (Chairman) (ii) Mr. Islam Nabi. Ex-Federal Minister (iii) Secretary, Department of Agriculture (iv) Administrator KMC (v)
Director General KDA (vi) Managing Director KESC (vii) Managing Director KW&SB (viii) Director General Rangers Sindh, (ix) General Manager (Sindh) National Highway Authority (x) Chief of Traffic- Engineering Bureau. KDA (xi) D.I.G. Traffic Karachi (xii) Commissioner Karachi (Coordinator).
(iii) As first step the standing committee shall appoint a Town planner and get the existing layout plan undated and approved by the Town Planning Department of KDA including all building structures.
(iv) After the approval of layout plan the Standing Committee shall proceed to allot plots/shops/ restaurants/cold storages etc.
(v) The - allottees/tenants/licensee as per list prepared by Pakistan Rangers Sindh vide their report dated 30.3.1999 & all others who were allotted shops/plots/restaurants/cold storage in any other manner and not disputed by the defunct Market Committee Karachi shall become allottees/tenants/licensees of the project as the case may be upon payment of present market price/rent/license fee of the plot/shop/restaurant/cold storage etc. As may be, determined by the Standing Committee, In case they fail to make payment of 25% of such market price within a period of four months and the balance amount within the next four months or such: extended time as the Standing Committee may determine, their allotment/tenancy/license shall stand revoked/cancelled/withdrawn and they shall render themselves liable to eviction therefrom & the Standing Committee may allot/rent out or have on license the same to anyone.
(vi) Those whose names have been omitted from - the list of Ranger but are otherwise qualified .To be allotted to a plot/shops on the basis of High Court order dated 2.6.1994 shall be allotted the same by the Standing Committee.
(vii) Since duplicate/triplicate allotments of 202 plots/shops were issued to members of Falahi Anjuman (Petitioners), such allotments stand cancelled unless their names appear in the list of Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) or otherwise such allottees qualify themselves as per High Court order dated 2.6.1994.
(viii) All the allottees/tenants/licensees of the project irrespective of the nature of their business shall pay ir*advance within one month of taking over possession of their premises ground rent and service charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. Ft. Per year failing which their allotments/tenancy/licenses shall be liable to be terminated by the Standing Committee.
(ix) The allottees/licensees shall pay all taxes, charges, cesses whatsoever including property tax, water & conservancy charges fire rates, gas & telephone charges & all future taxes charges cesses etc.
(x) The Standing Committee shall as early as possible .
Rectify/revise/review/validate/revoke/cancel contracts with third parties enabling it to proceed further in the matter.
(xi) The Standing Committee before shifting of Sabzi Mandi to its new site shall satisfy itself if all the utilities provided are free from defects and water; electricity & sewerage line fulfill the requirements there. The report of electrical Inspector must be taken seriously.
(xii) As temporary measure it is recommended that traffic signals & street: lights on Super Highway opposite New Sabzi Mandi may be provided title final arrangements are made for incoming & outgoing traffic to and from new Sabzi Mandi. Similarly till the sewerage line is connected soak pit may be built outside market area for discharging sewerage otherwise the Standing Committee may take such measures as it may deem fit & proper in both the cases.
(xiii) The Standing Committee may coopt more - members in it as & when necessary.
(xiv) Segregation of trade between fruit section(s) and vegetable. Section be dated upon as per , the order of the High Court dated 13.5. 1999.
(xv) Sufficient space has not been provided for parking as per the Technical Committee report, therefore steps may be taken to acquire more , land adjacent to the project to prevent traffic congestion within the premises of the New Sabzi Mandi.
(xvi) Direction is given to the Department of Agriculture Govt, of Sindh in exercise of my suo moto powers to submit to me up to date audited, statement of account of all the Market Committees of Sindh within six months hereof.
(xvii) A In view of the grave nature of mal administration of new sabzi mandi Karachi involving misuse , of authority, embezzlement, corrupt practices & withholding information during the proceedings. I do hereby refer this matter to the Chairman National Accountability Bureau under Section 22 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 for appropriate action against those who are responsible for it."
14. Looking to all the material available, on record, particularly the report of the Provincial Ombudsman referred earlier. We have no hesitation to hold that the dispute, agitated through these petitions has brought before us a second round of litigation of similar nature. Which formed basis of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 14.6.1999 in C.P. No. D-466/1998 and other connected petitions followed by the judgment of Honorables Supreme Court in the case of MUHAMMMD JAVED (Supra) and the decision of Provincial Ombudsman.
15. The submission of Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada regarding violation of the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" though seems attractive, but- same is also to be examined/applied keeping in mind that a party guilty of fraud, manipulation or any other mal-practices, cannot be allowed to avail the benefit of this golden principle of administration of justice for protection of ill-golden gains. Therefore, application of the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" or otherwise, will also entirely depend upon the careful examination of facts and circumstances of each case, and unless it is found that the petitioners have approached the Court with clean hands and are not guilty of any such fraud or mal-practices no benefit of this principle could be extended to them. If any case, law is needed to fortify this view, reference can be made to the following cases:
(a) Mst. Noorjahan v. Government of Sindh (2000 CLC 1005)
(b) Abdul Haq nd others v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 2000 KARACHI 224)
(c) Abdul Haq Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh (2O0O SCMR 907)
16. The submission of Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada with reference to violation of section 24-A of General Clauses Act has also no applicability to the facts of these petitions as mere publication of some news-items, as in the instant case, would not furnish any valid cause for the petitioners to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the, constitution, unless substantiated by any further action against them.
17. Moreover, we also cannot lose sight of the fact that the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution 'is meant to ensure/foster proper dispensation of justice and not to patronize "Qabza Mafia" of the parties for protection of their illegal business. If any case- law is needed to fortify this view, reference can be made on the following cases: Muhammad Saeed Khan V. Pb. Agricultural Dev. C.C. 353 Corporation (Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.)
1. Wali Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 107)
2. Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and four others (PLD f-997 Supreme Court 304)
3. Abdul Haq Indhar and others v. Province of Sinuh (2000 SCMR 907)
18. From the above discussion it is amply evident that the dispute agitated by the petitioners through these petitions, having long chequered history, cannot be resolved without detailed investigation into the factual controversies emerging from the divergent stand taken by the petitioners and the respondents. We, therefore, respectfully following the earlier judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 14.6.1996 in the case of Muhammad Javed v. Officer Incharge Market Committee which also relates to the similar controversy, as raised in these petitions hold that these petitions are not maintainable in law.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss these petitions in limine. However, it is expected that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 if they intend to take any action against the petitioners, will act strictly in accordance with la.