1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-These are two Constitutional Petitions directed against the 'order of Commissioner, Sukkur Division dated 12th May, 1980 and the order of District Magistrate, Shikarpur dated 75th June, 1980. The Commissioner, Sukkur Division on the appeal of respondent Miss Khadija Parveen had directed that if the District Magistrate is satisfied that Permanent Resident Certificate to the present two petitioners had been issued on misrepresentation of facts, he may take suo motu action for cancellation of P. R. C. The District Magistrate in his order entitled Miss Khadija Parveen v. Miss Faryal Wall and Miss Humaira Zahid had found that the P. R. C. No, 241 dated 5th December, 1978 and No, 240 dated 5th December, 1978 issued in favour of the present two petitioners respectively were basd on misrepresentation of facts and preparing false documents and he therefore cancelled the same.
2. ' The two petitioners had been issued certificates of domicile on 14th October, 1978 by the District Magistrate, Shikarpur and P. R. Cs. On 26th November, 1978 and consequently on the basis of the same the two petitioners were admitted in 1st year Women Medical College, Nawabshah. However, on 4th May, 1980, the respondent Khadija Parveen applied to the Commissioner, Sukkur Division against the grant of P. R. C. To the two petitioners. Miss Khadija Parveen had contended that the petitioners had been born in Punjab and had received their education in the said province and they were not residents of Khanpur and did not receive their education there. The petitioners were not served with the notice of the said appeal but the Commissioner, Sukkur Division decided the said appeals. He however, did not deal with the merits of the case and merely observed that the District Magistrate could take suo motu action for cancellation of P. R. C. If the same was obtained on misrepresentation of facts. Miss Khadija Parveen thereafter applied to the District Magistrate, Shikarpur for cancellation of P.R.Cs. Of the two petitioners and the District Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners for hearing on 28th May, 1980. On 17th June, 1980, the counsel for the petitioners filed power before the District Magistrate and got the matter adjourned to 25th June, 1980.
3. However, on 25th June, 1980, the petitioners did not appear before the District Magistrate, their counsel appeared before the District Magistrate, but instead of proceeding with the case he made an application for adjournment on the ground that he was not feeling well. The District Magistrate, however, did not grant adjourn adjournment and proceeded to decide the cases. We find from the order of th District Magistrate that he examined Abdul Wahid Abro, Divisional Education Officer Shikarpur who had made enquiry and had found that the names of the petitioners were not found in the record of Government Primary School of Khanpur. However more, important was the statement of Amir Bix Head Master Government Primary School, Khanpur who denied that he had even signed on the school leaving certificate bearing No, 268 issued in the name of Miss Faryal Wali and No, 199 issued in the name of Miss Humaira Zahid.
4. ' It appears that the Permanent Resident Certificate granted to the Petitioners in 1978 has been issued on the basis of School Leaving Certificate bearing Nos. 168 and 199 alleged to have been issued-by Ameer Bux, Head Master, Government Primary School, Khanpur.
5. ' The District Magistrate also verified the record of Government Primary School, Khanpur and found the names of Umrazadi appearing at serial No, 168 of General Register of that school instead of the name of Miss Faryal Wali. He also found the name of Mohammad Sharif at Serial No, 199 of the General Register of that school instead of the name of Miss Humaira Zahid. The District Magistrate also noted that the P. R. C. Applications of the two petitioners before us had been thumb. Marked while the petitioners had signed notices with their signatures in English. On the basis of such evidence the District Magistrate came to C the conclusion that the P. R. Certificates issued to the two petitioners were based on misrepresentation of facts.
6. ' There appears to be a good deal of justification for the orders issued by the District Magistrate, Shikapur who has done so after issuing show-cause notices to the petitioners and after recording the evidence of Mr. Ameer Bux the Head Master, Government Primary School, Khanpur on the basis of whose certificates the petitioners had obtained the P. R. Cs. Mr. Ameer Bux had denied his signatures on those certificates and even the record and register of the School did not contain the names of the present petitioners and, therefore, the findings of misrepresentation by the petitioner is more than simply justified.
7. ' Mr. Munawar Malik counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Magistrate had no power to review his orders of 1978 as he had no powers of review. Mr. Munawar Malik also contended that the Commissioner Sukkur could not direct the District Magistrate to take suo motu action in respect of the P. R. C. The contention in respect of non-hearing by the Commissioner is of no significance in as much as the Commissioner had not decide any issue on merit and merely directed the District Magistrate to take suo mom action after notices to the parties and the District Magistrate, Shikarpur did issue the notices to the petitioners and they appeared before the District Magistrate through their counsel on 17th June, 1980 but the counsel failed to represent them on 25th June, i980 and he merely sought adjournment. We are, therefore, of the view that the Commissioner, Sukkur Division had not made any decision adverse to the petitioners an D the District Magistrate, Shikarpur has decided against them after issuing proper notices and thus affording a reasonable opportunity of presenting their cases. But the petitioners did not avail of that opportunity. Instead of that they approached the High Court on 24th June, 1980 with the present petitions and obtained an order of stay on 25th June, 1980, but the order of stay was not conveyed to the District Magistrate and he decided to E cancel their P. R. Cs. On the same day. Therefore, there was neither any breach of principle of natural justice nor was the stay granted by the High Court disobeyed as District Magistrate was not informed on 25th June, 1980, that the High Court had granted any stay order.
8. ' The other contention of Mr. Munawar Malik appears to be technically correct that there is no power granted in the SIND Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971 to the District Magistrate to review his order of granting P. R. C. We however, found that there was ample justification to cancel the P. R. C.
9. Which had been obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. We are clearly of the view that the fraud vitiates all proceedings and since the whole basis of the grant of P. R. Cs. To the petitioners was found to be completely baseless, therefore, any superstructure, of the P. R. C. Based on the foundation of fraudulently obtained certificates from the Primary School, had to be demolished to the ground. In any case, the petitioners have not submitted anything before us in these petitions to show that the findings of misrepresentation were in any way incorrect or unjustified, and it is, therefore, obvious that the petitioners who have been a party to fraud and mis-representations have come to the Court with unclean hands and, therefore, we are of the view that the discretion of the Court should not be exercised in their favour. We have therefore dismissed these petitions.