This order will dispose of two Intra Court Appeals (under objection) Diary No 19895 and No. 21790 of 2004, as common question of law and facts is involved therein.
2. These Intra Court Appeals have been directed against order dated 14.6.2004 and 29.6.2004 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, sustaining the office objection raised by the office on both the writ petitions filed by the appellants-Pakistan Lawyers Forum.
3. Office raised following objections on both the writ petitions:--
(1) Intra Court Appeal is not maintainable in the light of judgment.
(2) passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 24.6.2004;
(3) the forum is not an aggrieved person as such cannot file this writ petition on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Both these petitions were placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court who vide order dated 14.6.2004, 29.6.20004 maintained the office objection.
5. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are to the effect that the appellant filed one writ petition in the office praying for declaring the deportation of respondent No. 2 Mian Shahbaz Sharif on 11.5.2003 by using/showing the force, as an act subversive of the Constitution of the Pakistan and violative of the Constitutional guarantees of liberty, freedom and political justice as enshrined in Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also praying for issuance of writ of prohibition against respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
In the other writ petition, the petitioner prayed for issuance of direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the detenue Mian Shahjbaz Sharif before this Court as he was forcibly removed from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, detained and restrained under the command of the Federal Government of Pakistan and General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, so that the detenue be dealt with in accordance with law and be set at liberty.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that this Infra Court Appeal is competent as the order passed by a Judge of the High Court is always termed as judicial order and the office objection is not inconsonance with the High Court Rules and Orders. He further contended that the High Court Rules and Orders have been framed under the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Single Judge has exercised his original civil jurisdiction at the time of passing of the impugned order. He lastly and forcefully argued that an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under [clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan] not being an Order made under sub- paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. Director, F.I.A., Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1996 Lah. 328) and Begum D.F. Hassan v. Habib Bank Ltd., Lahore (PLD 1974 Lah. 117).
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant anxiously and perused the record. Clause 9(i) of the High Court Rules and Orders provides the powers to return suit, appeal or petition, etc. Which is reproduced as under:- "9. (i) The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is authorized to return memorandum of any suit, appeal, or petition, or application, etc.,--
(a) if it is not maintainable under any law; or
(b) if it is not properly constituted; or
(c) if it contains scandalous or objectionable language or material; or
(d) if it is not drawn up on conformity with the foregoing directions; or
(e) for amendment, making up of the deficiency or for filing requisite documents, within the time to be specified in the Objection Memorandum Appendix 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
(ii) The order of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) returning the memorandum of any suit, appeal, petition or application may be challenged before the Chief Justice or Judge nominated by the Chief Justice on administrative side whose decision shall be final and shall not be assailed in any other proceeding before the High Court."
8. The question that boils down for determination before this Court is that whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge, sustaining the office objection, is a judicial order and has been passed in original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Single Judge had neither exercised his original civil jurisdiction by passing the impugned order nor passed the same on merits as it was not a civil matter. The petitioner had knocked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which is distinct from the civil jurisdiction as laid down by the learned Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in, case of Ahmad Khan v. The Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court, West Pakistan, through the Registrar, High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1968 SC 171) wherein it is observed that the writ jurisdiction is clearly an original jurisdiction. Equally clearly, it does not fall within the extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction has been conferred on the High Court by an Article of the Constitution for the purpose of implementing the high directive in Article 25 that no person should be treated otherwise than in accordance with law.
9. The extra-ordinary original civil jurisdiction arises from Code of Civil Procedure and the objection cases placed before the learned Single Judge, were not the cases to have been dealt with under the said Code, therefore, the-exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as original civil jurisdiction. Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court though original jurisdiction but is not original civil jurisdiction of the Court. Reliance can be placed to Khushi Muhammad and 10 others v. Agha Hassan Raza and 2 others (1990 ALD 207 (1).
10. The Intra Court Appeal is competent before two or more Judges of the High Court from a decree passed or final order made by a Single Judge of that Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as provided in sub-clause (i) of Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). Although sub- clause 2 of Section 3 of the said Ordinance provides an appeal to two or more Judges of the High Court made from an order by Single Judge of that Court under Clause-1 of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, but the Intra Court Appeal could be entertained, had the Single Judge passed the order on merits of the case. It is admitted position that the merits of the case were not argued before the learned Judge and he did not touch the factual or legal position of the contents of the writ petition, therefore, it could not be termed as judicial order.
11. The impugned order was passed on an administrative side by the learned Single Judge nominated by the Chief Justice as enshrined in sub-clause 2 of Clause 9 of Chapter-I of Volume 5 of High Court Rules and Orders.
12. The Judicial Order and Administrative Order has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under:-- Judicial Order. "One which involves exercise of judicial discretion and affects final result of litigation and such order can be passed through judicial proceedings which means that any proceedings wherein judicial action is invoked and taken and any proceedings to obtain such remedy as the law allows. Any step taken in a Court of justice in the prosecution or defense of an action, the general term for proceedings relating to, practice in, or proceeding from, a Court of justice; or the course prescribed to be taken in various cases for the determination of a controversy or for legal redress or relief. A proceeding wherein there are parties, who have opportunity to be heard, and wherein the Tribunal proceeds either to a determination of facts upon evidence or of law upon proved or conceded facts."
Administrative Order. "The final disposition of a matter before an administrative agency; product of an administrative adjudication. Such order may be declaratory or it may contain an affirmative or negative command. The methods and processes as distinguished from judicial procedure which applies to Courts."
13. The order of the learned Single Judge maintaining, sustaining the rejecting office objection shall be final and shall not be assailed in any other proceedings before the High Court.
14. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in observing that no Infra Court Appeal is competent against the order passed by the Single Judge on office objection because it was an administrative order. Reference can be placed in this context to a case of Employees Management Group, Pak-Saudi Fertilizers Limited through Authprized v. Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Privatization (Privatization Commission), Pak Secretariat, Islamabad through Secretary and 8 others (2002 YLR 1487) and on an order passed on a case (Diary No. 8040/04) passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 24.6.2004 and also on Muhammad Riaz Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan and another (2004 SCMR 1120). In this case, the office objection was sustained by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 24.4.2002 which was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan directly without availing the remedy of Intra Court Appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence these petitions are dismissed upholding the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on administrative side. We also direct the office not to entertain any Intra Court Appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge on the office objection, in future. .
First Appeal 2005.