' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---This Constitution Petition has been filed under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petitioners are shareholders in respondent No,1 Company and own 22% shares in the respondent No,1 Company and 33% shares in an associate company. In the petition following prayers are made:- "(i) direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 declare land forthwith distribute entire unappropriated profit of Rs,1,90,00,000 as shown in the Accounts of 2009 to the shareholders of the respondent No, 1.
(ii) direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 to give authenticated copies of the Balance sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts of the Company to the petitioners for the last ten (10) years, from 1999 to 2008;
(iii) direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 to permit the petitioners, or any one of them along with their auditors, being chartered accountants and their assistants, to inspect all the books of accounts, bills, receipts, bank accounts and all other papers, statements and correspondence, of respondent No,1 to form a true and proper view of its affairs and profit and loss accounts for the past ten (10) years from 1999 to 2009 and to detect illegalities;
(iv) direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 to provide all facilities to the petitioners and their auditors and assistants for such inspection, and to fully cooperate with them in this respect, including assistance from their employees and servants without delay, prevarications or tardiness, for smooth, peaceful and effective inspection, and to make such books, documents and records available to the petitioners and to their auditors also at the office of the auditors, any time during normal working hours, without any restrictions of time and day;
(v) direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to allow the petitioners photocopying facilities to take Photostat copies of books, papers, receipts, bills and other documents as they might require in connection with such inspection and analysis and for record purposes;
(vi) restrain the respondents Nos.1 to 4 the management and/or all their officers, employees and servants and directors of the company from removing the books of accounts and all related bills, receipts and records of respondent No,1 or from hiding them in any way, to thwart the inspection by the petitioners and/or their auditors and auditors' assistants; and
(vii) any other relief deemed just and proper by this Court Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel was confronted with the question as to how this petition is maintainable.
Learned counsel submitted that right to property is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the petitioners have very frequently approached the respondents for providing them information in respect of different matters, accounts and affairs of the company and he submitted that this is their right under newly inserted Article 19-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Learned counsel submitted that under section 230 of the Companies Ordinance, books of the company are open for inspection by the directors and shareholders do not have any right for inspecting books of the company. Learned counsel submitted that remedies provided in section 290 or 305 of the Companies Ordinance are not efficacious remedies because they take unusually long time. He further submitted that since directors have not declared dividend for a long time it amounts to depriving of petitioner right of property and he has no remedy for action by the respondents.
3. Mr. Kashif Paracha, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 submitted that remedy is available under various provisions of the Companies Ordinance and even if not available Constitution Petition does not lie. He pointed out that Article 19-A is not applicable to the facts of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2009 SC 507. This was a case in which allegation was made that large number of people having obtained loan from landlords and having contracted to render services being otherwise bound to do so under the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 were misusing the provisions of section 491, Cr.P.C. To avoid repayment of loans or to render services in accordance with the Tenancy Act. Supreme Court extensively referred to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 and the following observations were made:-- "33. The reach of clause (c) however is wider. It not merely enables a Court to declare an action of a State functionary inconsistent with fundamental rights to be unlawful but also enables the Courts to practically enforce such rights by issuing appropriate directives as is evident from its language.
Accordingly, this Court after having earlier held that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article- 17 included the right of a political party to contest elections as a collective entity was able to issue mandatory directives in the case of Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan reported in (PLD 1989 SC 66) to the election authorities to amend the election rules to provide for the same under its powers to enforce fundamental rights under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Moreover, such directives could be issued to any person including the Government. In the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India reported in (AIR 1982 SC 1473) it was held that though some of the fundamental rights imposed negative obligation on the part of the State not to encroach upon individual's liberty etc., there were others, which were positively enforceable against the whole world. We are therefore clearly of the view that the High Court has plenary powers to positively enforce fundamental rights not merely against public authorities but even private parties.
Accordingly direction for positive enforcement of fundamental rights against private parties could only be given by the High Court in respect of rights guaranteed, inter alia by Articles 11, 22 etc. Which might in most cases require enforcement against such parties."
5. Newly inserted Article 19-A, may be referred at this stage. The said Article is in the following words:- "19-A. Right to information.---Every citizen shall have the right to have access to information in all matters of public importance subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law."
6. A perusal of the Article indicates that every citizen has been conferred a right to have access to information in all matters of public importance, however, subject firstly to regulations and secondly to reasonable restrictions by law. There is no disagreement that no such regulations have been framed. Non-framing of the regulations cannot have effect of rendering the right guaranteed by Article 19-A as nugatory. Therefore even if no regulations are framed this right is -available to all the citizens. In the absence of regulations and in the absence of restrictions task will be thrown to the Court to determine whether request for information in a particular case or denial of information in a particular case is reasonable or an order without lawful authority or not. But the Article does not stop here it further says that it must be in "matters of public importance". Therefore, it must be a matter in which pubic at large or at least a substantial section of population is interested. In the present case, information sought is regarding operation of a company which is just one of the 30,000 or so the companies incorporated in Pakistan. What could be the element of public interest in disclosure of such information, the learned counsel has failed to point out or establish. What the learned counsel argued was that if information is provided in this case it might help others in getting information in respect of such companies as they may be minority shareholders of. We cannot agree with the learned counsel for the petitioneRs, Article 19-A is attracted when a particular information is of public importance. When the information regarding operation of this company is of no significance to 99.9% of the people of Pakistan and it may be only the few shareholders or competitors or regulators which could be interested in the information. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel that his right to get the information comes within the purview of Article 19-A to us appears to be misconceived.
7. Petitioners who are share-holders in respondent No,
1. Company which is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and rights of shareholders, their rights to information, their rights to receive dividend and their rights in respect of mismanagement are extensively regulated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. For example if affairs are being mismanaged or funds are being used for the purposes other than the purposes of company, since the petitioners cumulatively hold 22% of the shares they have remedy of approaching this Court under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance or even under section 305 of the Companies Ordinance. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that those remedies are time consuming and take a long time. Since the same remedies are available before this Court this Court cannot say in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction that if a person comes under a provision of law which provides a complete remedy before this Court such action by that person would not be an adequate remedy provided by law.
Petitioner can in any case move application for urgent hearing.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to Muhammad Mohsin Butt and others v.
Muhammad Inayat Butt and others, 2005 CLD 1047, which was a winding up petition by some of the present petitioners against the present respondent No,1 Company wherein a single Judge of this Court held that there is nothing in law to exclude consideration of controversial facts and question requiring evidence while exercising jurisdiction under section 9 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
Those matters are still pending. The petitioners have not disclosed in the petition pendency of those matteRs, They do not appear to have come with clean hands. In any case, if the petitioners want the matters to be decided earlier and expeditiously they may make an appropriate application in that matter. In any case in the case of Company which is not owned or controlled by the Government it is not available that direction for issuance of F writ be made by this Court. If any authority is needed one may refer to Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others, PLD 1975 SC 244, In Gujrat Punjab Bus Limited and others v. Mian Muhammad Ashraf Pugganwala and others, PLD 1960 (W.P) Lahore 609, the petitioner was a Private Limited Company. Dispute was going on between two groups of share-holders for its control and management. Annual general meeting of the Company was called and the agenda was circulated. Since it was apprehended that two rival groups were vying and therefore shouting may lead to blows and serious breach of peace, an application was made to the Deputy Commissioner Gujrat to make necessary arrangements for supervision of the election and to prevent breach of peace. Deputy Commissioner issued instructions. Meeting took place and certain persons were elected as DirectoRs, A petition was filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ ordering 9 persons alleged to have been elected Directors not to function as directors of the Company and restraining them from acting as Directors of the company. The High Court held that it is open to the petitioner to file suit questioning the legality of elections and it will be for the Court in which the suit is filed to record evidence and after exhaustive enquiry, to come to the conclusion as to the facts. It was further observed that the-petition was directed to enforce a personal right of the petitioners as distinguished from enforcement of a duty of a public nature and is, therefore, outside the scope of mandamus.
9. In the present case also all the prayers made by the petitioners pertain to enforcement of their rights as shareholders of respondent No,1 Company which is not G owned and controlled by the Government. No violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioners has been pointed out.
' Consequently this constitution petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Listed application is disposed of.