' This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 6-3-2013 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. Through the impugned order, the learned Court had directed that a sum of Rs,2,000,000 lying in deposit with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court may be released, to respondent No,1 if he gets relief from the competent forum failing which the amount in question be refunded to appellant No, 1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 filed a constitutional petition before this Court stating that he had joined hands with appellant No,1 and Jadeed Al-Race Hajj Services Private Limited to conduct Hajj operations under a quota allocated by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The share of respondent No,1 in the company was 45%. Subsequently respondent No,6 added Muhammad Asif Khan. Appellant No,2 to reduce the share of respondent No,1 from 45% to 25%. They opened bank accounts with forged signatures of the respondent No,1 and also altered the shareholding structure in the records of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. It was also alleged that respondent No,1 had been removed from his position as director of the company in an unlawful and stealthy manner. On account of the dispute, respondent No,1 wrote letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan as well as Ministry of Religious Affairs alleging that the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 had played fraud on him by removing him from respondent No,3 with the intention of depriving him of the benefit of profits earned by the company arising out of Hajj Operations. He alleged that the Hajj quota had been issued in favour of the company of which the petitioner was not only a share holder and director but also entitled to a proportionate share in the profits. Through the petition, respondent No,1 sought a direction to the Ministry of Religious Affairs to allocate, the Hajj quota to Jadeed Al-Race Hajj Services Private Limited and to hand over the Muazim card to him. It was further prayed that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan may be directed not to issue No Objection Certificate in the name of Jadeed Al-Race Hajj Services Private Limited. The afore-noted constitutional petition was filed in the backdrop of a large number of constitutional petitions being heard by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in which various disputes regarding Hajj operations and allocation of Hajj quotas were under challenge. In this context, vide order dated 20-9-2012, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant No,1 to deposit a sum of Rs,2,000,000 with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as security for the claim lodged by the petitioner. However, on account of the fact that Hajj Operations 2012 came to an end during pendency of the petition, the learned Court held that the petitioners management dispute could not be adjudicated in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. However, respondent No,1 was given an opportunity to move a competent forum for relief within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of order dated 6-3-2013. It was further ordered that if the petitioners succeeded before the competent forum, the amount of Rs,2,000,000 in deposit with Deputy Registrar (Judicial) may be released to respondent No,1 otherwise, the same may be refunded to appellant No,1 by the office.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that having come to the conclusion that this Court could not adjudicate the management dispute between the parties in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the petition should have been dismissed instead of providing an opportunity to respondent No,I to approach a competent Court within 30 days. He further submits that shareholders holding 75% of the total share of appellant No,3 removed the petitioner from the company as a director under section 181 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. As such the learned single judge by imposing a condition on refund of the amount deposited by the appellants in essence prejudged the issue and placed the appellants at considerable disadvantage. The learned Counsel finally submits that the relief granted by the learned single Judge travels beyond the prayer made in the petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
5. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a management dispute between the parties. The fact that the appellants voluntarily agreed to deposit .a sum of Rs,2,000,000 with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in order to retain allocation of Hujjaj quota for Jadeed Al-Raee Hajj Services Private Limited by itself shows that the appellants recognized the claim of the respondent to some extent and agreed to work out an out of Court settlement. The amount in question was deposited to retain the benefits of Hujjaj quota as well as to establish bona fides of the petitioners and provide basis and incentive for the parties to resolve the matter. The fact that the dispute could not be resolved and while the petition was pending, the Hajj operations 2012 ended, does not automatically lead to the consequence that the petition should have been dismissed and the amounts deposited with the consent of the parties should unilaterally have been refunded to the appellants.
6. This Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not only a Court of law but also a Court of equity. It could not have closed its eyes to the fact that there was a dispute which needed to be resolved and even if the management dispute could not be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, both the parties should have been given a fair chance to approach the courts of competent jurisdiction to not only resolve their management disputes but also to determine the fate of Rs,2,00,000 which were deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) by way of security.
Therefore, we are not convinced that the order passed by the learned single judge is unlawful, without jurisdiction or perverse. On the contrary, it is a just and fair order through which while maintaining status quo relating to the amount of Rs, 2,000,000, the parties have been given a fair chance to approach a Court of competent jurisdiction to settle their management dispute in a lawful manner on the basis of which the amount in question would be released to the party found entitled to the same.
7. For reasons recorded above, we are not persuaded to interfere in the order passed by the learned Judge in chambers, which unexceptionable/.