Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 6 challenged. Minutes of the Emergent Meeting of the Executive Committee/Adhoc Management Committee dated 12.7.2011 through the Constitutional petition. The learned Judge in Chamber held that respondent No. 6 had an alternate remedy available and, therefore, directed the Director General, Trade Organization to attend to the grievance raised in the writ petition and to decide the same within two weeks. In addition to the above direction, the learned Judge in Chamber restrained the Executive Committee/Adhoc Management Committee from acting upon the Minutes of the Emergent Meeting for a period of two weeks.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned order dated 7.9.2011 has been passed without notice to the appellants and, therefore, on this score alone the portion of the order whereby Adhoc Management Committee has been restrained from acting on the Minures of the Emergent Meeting dated 12.7.2011 offends the principle of natural justice and is, therefore, bad in law. He additionally submitted that once the learned Judge in Chamber had directed respondent No. 6 to avail alternate remedy there was no legal justification for passing a restraining order against the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 prays that inspite of order dated 7.9.2011 Director General, Trade Organization has yet not decided the matter and prayed for further direction in this regard.
4. Arguments heard.
5. The impugned order to the extent of restraining the appellants from proceeding with the Minutes of the Emergent Meeting dated 12.7.2011 has been passed without notice to the appellants.. Infact the Constitutional petition of respondent No. 6 has been finally decided without granting the appellants a hearing which is against the principle of natural justice and offends Articles 4 and 10- A of the Constitution.
6. Further, Constitutional petition against Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which is a private body, is not maintainable hence the impugned order to the extent of the appellants is totally without jurisdiction.
7. As the representation of respondent No. 6 is pending before the Director General, Trade Organization, we would not like to dilate upon the merits of the case, lest the case of respondent No. 6 is unduly prejudiced before the Director General.
8. Impugned order to the extent of restraining the appellants/Adhoc Management Committee from acting on the minutes of the Emergent Meeting is bad in law and is, therefore, set aside.
9. The request of respondent No. 6 for issuance of fresh direction against Director 'General, Trade Organization cannot be entertained. In dated 7.9.2011 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber is not being complied with, respondent No. 6 is free to initiate contempt proceedings against the Director General, Trade Organization, if so advised. We are not inclined to issue a fresh direction to the Director General when the earlier direction given by the learned Judge in Chamber has not been complied with and no steps have been taken by respondent No. 6 against the Director General.
10. For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 7.9.2011 is partially set aside in the above terms. I.C.A. Allowed.