1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.--- This petition is directed against order, dated 14th February, 2004, passed by District Coordination Officer, Lasbella at Uthal, whereby; Government of Balochistan while declaring the districts of Quetta, Nasirabad and Lasbella into "A" areas, ceased the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars to perform their duties as Officer Incharge of Police Stations from the date of their replacement by Police Officers to be posted by the Police Department.
2. ' Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner is General Councillor of Union Council Sonmiani, District Lasbella, who has challenged the passing of abovesaid order of competent authority. It has been stated that Levies force is an effective institution having local people of the area with long experience of tribal society, culture and customs of the Province, while the jurisdiction of Levies covers 95 % area of the Province, which has effectively controlled the law and order situation in these areas and the ratio of crime is lowest. The absorption of "B" areas into "A" areas is an attempt to infringe the Constitutional rights of Levies Force.
3. ' Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No,2 i,e, Home and Tribal Affairs Department filed parawise comments stating therein that the decision was taken in a high level meeting chaired by both the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan, whereby it was decided that all districts shall be converted into "A" area in a phased programme spread over five years. It was further stated the Levies Force has served the Province definitely well however; it has its limitations being a tribal based force. In modern times it is necessary that policing functions are performed with absolute neutrality and by using modern methods of investigation, crime detection and preparing of evidence to be effective for Court trials, which function can be more better performed by the police, which has developed an institutional capacity for such tasks. It was stated that the crime rate in levies area i,e, "B" area has been less as compared to "A" area is not because of extraordinary performance of the Levies Force, rather due to tribal bonds and environment, which serves as deterrent to the crime. It has been stated that there is a criterion for absorption of Levies Force into Police Force, whereby; Levies personnel have been given option to take the new job or proceed on retirement, if eligible. Respondent No,2 Provincial Police Officer in his parawise comments has resisted the petition by stating that the Levies Force is untrained, uneducated and unprofessional, which is acceptable to the people who follow the local customs and act according to the social and tribal norms, which may at time be opposed to the laws of the land.
4. ' It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow contents of order, dated 14 February, 2004, issued by District Coordination Officer, Lasbella:-- "In partial modification of this Department's Notification No,So(Judl.)4(5)Vol-V/456093, dated 9th January, 1997, the Government of Balochistan is pleased to declare that for the districts of Quetta, Nasirabad and Lasbella, recently completely into "A" areas, the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars shall cease to perform the duties as Officers Incharge of Police Stations from the date they are replaced by Police Officers to be posted by the competent authorities of the Police Department.
5. By the order of Governor Balochistan No,1442-57/3(21)/SB/DCO/LBA.
6. ' Office of the District Coordination Officer, Lasbella at Uthal Dated Uthal the 14th February, 2004."
7. ' Mr. Shah Muhammad Jatoi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner, while Mr. Abdul Nasir Kasi, learned counsel represented the official respondents.
8. ' Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that; (a) despite the fact that Levies Force is still one of the best law enforcing agency but its substitution with incompetent force without giving opportunity of hearing or taking into confidence the local interest of the area, is non-meriting and thus; the impugned notification is against the spirit of maintaining law and order, as well as, this act is favouritism and also violation of fundamental rights; (b) the Levies Force being extremely popular in public, but its substitution has got created hatred in the society by way of bulldozing the interest of public without their consent, hence; the impugned notification has been issued to get rid of local people, and thus; is required to be declared as unlawful; (c) the Government of Balochistan has taken the decision without placing this issue before the Provincial Assembly, rather; instant decision was made contrary to wishes of the public-at-large.
9. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for official respondents has placed on recorded minutes of the meeting chaired by the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan whereby the regular law already extended to the area is to be applied through regular force in order to establish rule of law and uniformity of the same with other parts of country. The first question for examination is to whether the superior Courts have interfered in policy matters whereby; the uniformity of law and machinery having been installed to bring people of said area at par with other citizens of country. It is an established principle of law that the orders which are passed on universal principles made applicable to all parts of the country, unless are repugnant to any provision of statute or fundamental rights cannot be interfered or loathed with. We are supported by the judgments reported in the cases i,e, Ahmed Abdullah and 62 others v. Government of Punjab and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 752, Prof. Nov Muhammad Khan Marwat, Principal, Lucky, College of Education and Research, Lakki Marwat v. Vice-Chancellor, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan and 2 others PLD 2001 SC 219, Muhammad Iqbal Rafi and 2 others v. The Province of Punjab, Lahore and others 1986 SCM R 680. The relevant observations of the Full Bench of Lahore High Court are reproduced hereinblow:-- "37. ... Sitting in the Constitutionarjurisdiction this Court would not like to enter into the policy making domain of the State or question the legislative wisdom."
10. 'We are also of the view that the petitioner has no personal interest in the matter and cannot be treated as aggrieved person; the discretion cannot be exercised to allow favouring people to remain backward in the area. According to us, the steps taken by the Government in introducing the policy is a step forward in justifying the rule of law.
11. ' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.