SYED HASAN AZHAR EIZVI, J.---The petitioners by this present petition have challenged the Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) of District Benazirabad, (Nawabshah) issued to the respondents Nos.4 to 12. The petitioners and the respondents applied for admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. In Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Sindh (LUMHS) on merit quota of District Benazirabad. The entry test held on 1-11-2009 and the petitioners were placed at Serials Nos.38, 39 and 40.
The District Benazirabad was allocated 35 seats of M.B.B.S. On merits, 3 seats of BDS and 5 seats on self-finance basis. The respondents Nos.4 to 12 were assigned following positions on merits, list of which is as follows:-- S. No, Names of Respondent Merit Number
1. Mr. Syed Zahid Hussain/Respondent No.4 18
2. Ms. Sadia Sheerazi/Respondent No.5 9
3. Mr. Syed Abdul Rehman/Respondent No.6 13
4. Ms. Sadrutul Muntaha/Respondent No.7 12
5. Mr. Syed Waris Ali/Respondent No.8 15
6. Ms. Munnaza Khan/Respondent No.9. 19
7. Ms. Aymen Bashir/Respondent No.10 20
8. Ms. Amina Waheed/Respondent No.11 22
9. Muhammad Junaid/Respondent No.12 32
2. It is, inter alia contendefty the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents Nos.4 to 12, who have availed merit seat of District Benazirabad in First Year of M.B.B.S. In LUMHS are not the permanent residents of District Benazirabad and as such they are not entitled for permanent resident certificate of District Benazirabad under Sindh Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents Nos.4 to 12 acquired permanent resident certificate on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation and have managed certain documents for obtaining same in order to get admission in the M.B.B.S. On the seats of District Benazirabad over the inherent rights of the permanent residents of District Benazirabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the respondent No,4 got his education out of District Benazirabad, the respondents Nos.5 and 6 belong to District Naushero Feroz and they had shifted along with their parents to District Benazirabad, the DCO Naushero Feroz cancelled their Domicile on 16-10-2009. The respondent No,7 acquired her entire education from Dera Ghazi Khan. The respondent No,8 is permanent resident of Hyderabad and acquired his education at Hyderabad.
The respondent No,9 is residing with her parents in Hyderabad and acquired her education from Hyderabad. Respondent No,10 acquired her entire education from Islamabad and her father was issued Domicile of Mohalla Israrpura, Nawabshah Town. The respondent No,11 acquired her education at Institute Vehari, Punjab and the respondent No,12 passed his primary education in Karachi and Matric from Nawabshah. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Miss Wardah Salman v. Government of Sindh (2000 CLC 1189) Syed Muzaffar Ali Jafri v.
The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division (1984 CLC 1352), Miss Mehrun Nisa Balouch v. Appellate Committee (1978 SCMR 439), Mehboob-ul-Hassan Khan v. Dow University of Health Sciences (PLD 2008 Karachi 49), Miss Naseem Kausar Arbab v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1972 Karachi 563), Muhammad Saleem Khan v. Principal, Ayub Medical College (1986 CLC 1425), Waheed Ahmed Khan v. Principal Sindh Medical College (2004 MLD 1722) and Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore (2010 PLC (C. S) 924).
3. It was contended by Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 and 6 that the respondents Nos.5 and 6 got rightlyPRCs after observing all legal requirements in accordance with law. It was further contended by the learned counsel that non-availing of alternate and adequate remedy where a particular statute provides self-contained machinery for determination of questions arising under the statute and law provides a remedy by appeal to another forum fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory tribunals, the constitutional petition, without exhausting remedy provided by the statute, does not lie in the circumstances. According to the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 and 6, the petition is not maintainable and has been filed with false and incorrect allegations levelled against the respondents. On 18-3-2010, Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 and 6 raised preliminary objection that there is an alternate remedy per Rule 8(1) of the Sindh Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971 whereby appeal is maintainable before the Home Secretary, Province of Sindh. Then the case was referred to the Home Secretary, Province of Sindh to decide the dispute between the parties after issuing them necessary notice and the petitioners were directed to file appropriate appeal before Home Secretary, Province of Sindh. It was further contended that the transfer and posting of the persons in government service do not deprive them of their legitimate rights to take domiciles and PRCs for their children from their native place as only due to service, they are living out of their home towns,.
It was next argued by Mr. Jafri that the respondents got their PRCs from the District where their forefathers are the original inhabitants, though the respondents studied in different places due to transfer of their parents, but their permanent abode remained District Benazirabad (Nawabshah).
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima v.
Muhammad Salim (2001 SCMR 1493).
4. As per directions of this Court, the petitioners filed a PRC Appeal bearing No,1 of 2010 under Rule 8(2) of the Sindh Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1972 before the Sindh PRC Appellate Committee against the respondents Nos.4 to 12 in the present petition and others.
5. After hearing the parties, the Home Secretary/Chairman, Sindh PRC Appellate Committee passed a very comprehensive and detailed order, which is available on record. The Appellate Authority, during the proceedings, enquired from the appellantsside to produce any evidence confirming that the respondents are not permanent residents of District Benazirabad (Nawabshah), but they have failed to do so.
6. The Home Secretary/Chairman, Sindh PRC Appellate Committee, after gone through the material available before him, dismissed the appeal against the respondents Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 and allowed the appeal only against the respondent No,11. The Appellate Authority has discussed the case of the respondents at great length.
7. Each and every case of the respondents has been discussed by the Appellate Authority at length.
In the case of the respondent No,4, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that all the documents placed before him confirm that the permanent abode of the respondent No,4 is of District Benazirabad (Nawabshah) and the respondent No,4 has rightly obtained his PRC from District Benazirabad (Nawabshah).
8. In the case of respondents Nos.5 and 6 being brother and sister inter-se, the Appellate Authority have rightly got their PRCs from District Benazirabad (Nawabshah) having adopted proper procedure for issuance of PRCs.
9. The Appellate Authority, in the case of respondent No,7, decided to make a request to DCO, Dera Ghazi Khan, to conduct an enquiry to determine whether the respondent No,7 is a permanent resident of District Dera Ghazi Khan and her father have been listed in voterslist at District Dera Ghazi Khan and/or any moveable and immoveable property is in the said District.
10. After conducting enquiry, the DCO, Dera Ghazi Khan reported that the father of the respondent No,7 is an employee of Al-Ghazi Tractor Limited, D.G Khan since 1994, and in his CNIC the permanent address is of District Nawabshah, while the present address entered is Sakhi Sarwar Road, D.G. Khan. Insofar as the domicile of the father of the respondent No,7, there is no record that he has ever never been issued domicile of D.G Khan since 1994 till date.
11. The Appellate Authority, after perusal of the report of DCO, D.G. Khan, came to the conclusion that the District Administration, Nawabshah has rightly issued the PRC to the respondent No,7 being permanent resident of District Benazirabad (Nawabshah).
12. In the case of respondent No,8, the Appellate Authority decided to enquire from DCO Hyderabad to find out the genuineness/factual position regarding permanent status of the ancestral of the respondent No,8.
13. The DCO, Hyderabad, after conducting enquiry, reported that father of the Respondent No,8 originally belongs to village Kuwat Ali Shah Deh 50 Nusrat, Taluka Doar District Nawabshah but now is residing in House No,30/156/17, Liaquat Road, Civil Lines, Hyderabad and is a Government Servant.
14. After hearing the parties and perusal of the report of DCO, Hyderabad, the Appellate Authority has held that the petitioners could not prove their contentions against the respondent. No,8 and the District Administration, Nawabshah correctly issued the PRC to the respondent No,8.
15. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority, by rejecting the plea of the petitioners against the respondent No,9, has held that just temporary absence from place of residence for the purpose of education or due to father's employment in government service, cannot be sufficient reason for rejecting the PRC of the respondent No,9.
16. The Appellate Authority has rejected the plea of petitioners against the respondent No,10, as according to it, due to service of father of the respondent No,10, she got her entire education at Islamabad and the respondent No,10 has rightly got her PRC by adopting proper procedure.
17. Insofar as the case of the respondent No,11 is concerned, the appeal has been allowed against the respondent No,11, as she has obtained the PRC by submitted forged documents before the Issuing Authority and her PRC has been ordered to be cancelled.
18. The plea of the petitioners, in the case of the respondent No,12, is that he has obtained the PRC of District Benazirabad (Nawabshah) fraudulently, as in the School Leaving Certificate of the respondent No,12 issued by the Foundation Public School, Nawabshah, the place of birth Karachi is mentioned.
19. The DCO Nawabshah has reported in his comments that the respondent No,12 born at Karachi, as his father was in job at Karachi. The respondent No,12 got his education at Karachi and Nawabshah. The Appellate Authority, by rejecting the plea of the petitioners, has held that the respondent No,12 has rightly got his PRC from District Nawabshah as his family is permanently residing in the said District.
20. The petitioners did not challenge the order passed by the Home Secretary/Chairman, Sindh PRC Appellate Committee dated 10-6-2010 in PRC Appeal No,1 of 2010 before any Authorities or Forum but simply filed objections to the said order before this Court on 17- 8-2010.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has frankly stated that the petitioners got admission in LUMHS on the seats on self-finance basis and they are studing in 3rd Semester of M.B.B.S.
22. Muhammad Ahsan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.7,9,10 and 12 while adopting the arguments of Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 and 6, contended that the controversy raised by the petitioners in the instant petition requires recording of evidence, which exercise cannot be done by this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and that the petitioners have failed to point out infringement of their constitutional rights in this petition by the respondents, who got PRCs from their own Districts after observing all legal formalities. So also Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the respondent No,11 has adopted the arguments of Mr. Jafri.
23. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material available on record as well as the order passed by the Home Secretary/Chairman, Sindh PRC Appellate Committee.
24. Prima facie, the petitioners have challenged the PRCs said to be issued to the respondents, fraudulently and by misrepresentation. The case was referred to the Home Secretary/ Chairman, Sindh PRC Appellate Committee for determination, from where the appeal against respondents Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 was dismissed and allowed the appeal only against the respondent No,11. The Appellate Committee minutely examined the case of each and every student placed before l imp by calling comments as well as held enquiries from the concerned quarters, where the appeal against the respondents Nos.4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 was dismissed and allowed the appeal only against the respondent No,11 by passing a speaking order by the Appellate Committee and Issuing Authority, PRC was directed to cancel the PRC of the respondent No,11. After passing the order by Appellate Committee, the petitioners should have exhausted the remedy available under the law instead of filing objections before this Court on the said order.
25. Prima facie, the mala fides of the petitioners are apparent from the fact that, though the learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that the petitioners got admissions on self- finance scheme, the petitioners under the garb of order of this Court, through the instant petition, want to expel the respondents from the merit list and place themselves up in the merit list and get the amount refunded, which was deposited on self-finance scheme basis, otherwise no question arises that the petitioners took great pains for filing of the instant petition, without exhausting alternate and adequate remedy available under the law, against the respondents with no other motive.
26. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevancy and is not applicable in the instant case. We are of the view that the petitioners have no merits. This petition is dismissed.
27. This petition was dismissed on 2-3-2011 by a short order. These are the reasons for the same.