' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought as under:--- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may very graciously be issued calling upon the respondent No,3 that under what authority of law, she is claiming to be a Ph.D. Degree Holder (Chemistry Discipline) and is getting the financial benefits on its basis, when her thesis suffers from serious plagiarism and has not yet been approved in accordance with law and rules framed thereunder. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 may also be called upon to explain that under what authority they have conferred Ph.D. Degree upon the respondent No,3.
(2) It is additionally prayed that against respondent No,3 and the conniving supervisor/supervisors whose dissertations have been used in the thesis submitted by respondent No,3, appropriate proceedings, departmental and through the initiation of criminal proceedings of fraud and forgery may also be directed to be initiated."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has atgued his case at considerable length and has contended that the petitioner is an affectee person because, when respondent No,3 who is lecturer in Government College University has been awarded Ph.D. Degree (Chemistry Discipline), the petitioner being student of science was motivated to look into the responsibility of respondent No,3's thesis so as to find out as to what new theory has been propounded and on the basis thereof, what new research has been carried out by respondent No,3. According to the petitioner's counsel, on a little inquiry and bare reading of her thesis "Microbial Production of Glucose Oxidase and its Commercial Application" it reveals that the thesis of respondent No,3 were copied from the thesis of one Khawar Siddique, M. Phil, Quaid-i-Azam University. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner reported the matter to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but no action has been initiated against respondent No,3. Learned counsel argues that without any reason, respondent No,1 has dropped inquiry proceedings against respondent No,3 and has even awarded Ph.D. Degree for which she is not entitled. Learned counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed and appropriate proceedings be initiated against respondent No,3.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 inter alia contends that the instant writ petition has been filed just to blackmail and harass respondent No,3. The petitioner has no nexus or relation with respondent No,3 who has been acting on the instance of someone else because respondent No,3 neither knows the petitioner personally nor has any business relation or any other link with the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed with costs.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Prior to the filing of this writ petition, Dr., Shazia Khurshid/respondent No,3 had filed a Writ Petition bearing No,9148 of 2010 seeking direction to Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of Government College University (GCU) to Issue her Ph.D. Degree (Chemistry) and not to harass her. In the writ petition, Dr. Shazia Khurshid inter alia contended that she is working as Lecturer in Chemistry in GCU and has done her Ph.D. (Chemistry) vide Notification No,6966/C, Examination dated 18-8-2009 and as a consequence she was also granted Ph.D. Allowance. Nevertheless, she was not being awarded Ph.D. Degree due to grudge of Registrar of GCU who had a bad eye on her. She further submitted that the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of GCU also appointed Dr. Kausar Abdullah Malik, scientist and HEC representative who held meetings and submitted report to the GCU with positive remarks in her favour. Dr. Shazia Khrusheed also filed appeal to the Governor of the Punjab/Chancellor of GCU and even after several reminders issued by Governor's\ Secretariat, the respondents (Vice- Chancellor and Registrar of GCU) did not comply with the orders of Governor of Punjab that the issue be finalized uptil 25-2-2010. Dr. Shazia Khurshid also asserted in, her writ petition that the respondents had extended her threats of dire consequence, caused harassment and declined to issue Ph.D. Degree to her.
6. Vide order dated 5-5-2010 passed in Writ Petition No,9148 of 2010, this Court ordered as under:--- "A copy of this petition be sent to respondent No,1 (Vice-Chancellor GCU) who is directed to issue Ph.D. Degree in favour of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days from the receipt of this order strictly in accordance with law. The said respondent No,1 is also restrained from harassing the petitioner. Disposed of."
7. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 5-5-2010, a Review Petition No,37 of 2010 was filed by Vice- Chancellor/Registrar of GCU which, vide order dated 14-5-2010, was disposed of with the following observation:-- "The petitioners have failed to interpret the order/direction dated 5-5-2010 which was issued to the petitioners to issue Ph.D. Degree in favour of Shazia Khushid respondent strictly in accordance with law. However, if the thesis of respondent Shazia Khurshid has not so far been completed, an appropriate decision be taken and matter of Shazia Khurshid be disposed of expeditiously instead of creating harassm ent or menial torture to her and when she qualifies, respondent Shazia Khurshid be delivered Ph .D. Degree. With this clarification, review petition stands disposed of."
8. Now, the present Petition No,18795 of 2010 has been filed with the allegation of plagiarism by a petitioner who has no nexus with the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. A few questions were put to the petitioner who firstly avoided to answer the questions put by the Court and thereafter on asking by his learned counsel, the petitioner submitted before this Court that he is employee of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and at present, he is working for NATO in Afghanistan, he does not know respondent No,3 personally as to where she resides, he is not even aware of the course prescribed for Ph.D. (Chemistry- Discipline) or about the thesis prepared by respondent No,3 and he does not pay any tax. The petitioner has produced his office I.D. Card which shows that he is a mere Technician. The petitioner has not mentioned his address on his writ petition. He belongs to a very nominal technician career. It is prima facie clear from the replies of the petitioner that he has no nexus with the respondent No,3 whatsoever and the instant writ petition has been filed on the instigation of someone else for some ulterior motives.
9. The outcome of the above discussion is that the present writ petition having no substance or merit is dismissed with costs of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only). The petitioner is directed to deposit the costs with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court against a valid receipt within a fortnight. In case of non-deposit of the costs within a fortnight, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the District Officer (Revenue), Collector Lahore for recovery of costs of Rs,50,000 from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by adopting all coersive methods if so needed. A copy of this judgment be also sent to I.-G. Punjab along with original I.D. Card of the petitioner for further inquiry against him. The I.-G. Punjab is also directed to submit the report of his inquiry/proceedings to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within four weeks positively for the perusal of this court.