' SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J. --- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:- ' "In view of the above submissions it is humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 09.03.2013 may kindly be set aside. Respondent No, 2 & 3 be directed to arrest the P.Os and produced before the learned trial court for the earlier conclusion of the trial.
' It is also prayed that the present investigation carried out by respondent No,4 & 5 may kindly be ordered to be stayed till the final decision of this petition.
' Any other relief, which this court deem fit may also be granted to the petitioner."
2. The background leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is that on 20.04.2012 Mst.
Rukhsana Bibi daughter of the petitioner was forcibly abducted by the accused persons on a gun point from the way of her house. The accused persons detained her at different places, where the accused Muhammad Fazal, Rab Nawaz and Junaid lqbal committed zina bil jabr with her. On the application of victim, case FIR No, 174/2012, under section 496-A/376 PPC was registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu Kabirwala District Khanewal whereas according to the petitioner as a counterblast case FIR No, 175/12 under section 496-N376 PPC was also registered at the same Police Station on the statement of Mst. Mariam sister of accused Muhammad Fazal (P.0) against the petitioner etc. Subsequently on 11.6.2012 Mst. Mariam Bibi complainant of case FIR No, 175/12 submitted an application before respondent No, 1 for 1st change of investigation of both subject cases. On this, the District Police Officer, Khanewal was directed by respondent No, 1 to process the subject cases under Article 18 (6) of Police Order, 2002 for 1st change of investigation. The District Standing Board, Khanewal recommended both the cases for 1st change of investigation and sent findings of the Board duly endorsed by RPO, Multan Region Multan vide RPOs letters No, 42020/ADIG & 42021/ADIG dated 27.09.2012. Respondent No, 1 refused to change the 1st time investigation and referred back the matter to District Police Officer Khanewal with certain directions and observations, vide Office Memo No, 71455 / Inv / HC dated 16.10.2012 and No, 74778/Inv / HC dated 31 10.2012. According to the petitioner, in compliance of orders of respondent No, 1 the investigation in both the cases has been completed and challans /reports under section 173 Cr.P.C. Have been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction. The trial has commenced, charge has been framed and the witnesses are being summoned to complete the trial. The main accused of case FIR No, 174/2012 Muhammad Fazal was not arrested by the local police and was declared P.O. The other accused persons also did not appear before the trial court. The petitioner appeared before respondent No, 2 and requested him for the arrest of P.Os. But he without any justification recommended the cases for change of investigation for second time and respondent No, 1 reviewing his earlier order changed the investigation in both cases and entrusted the investigation to R.I.B. Multan without obtaining any clarification about the observation/directions already issued for the first time vide office order No, 13160/Inv/HC dated 19.02.2013.
3. On 22.1.2013 the petitioner appeared before respondent No, 2 and requested him for the arrest of (P.Os), but the respondent No, 2 informed that the case files of both the cases have been referred to respondent No, 1 for the change of investigation. In this regard, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.1.2013 to respondent No, 1 and requested him that the investigation of these cases should not be changed , because the cases are subjudice before the learned trial court. The petitioner also filed W.P. No, 1799 of 2013 before this Court wherein direction was issued to respondent No, 1 to decide the application of the petitioner dated 25.1.2013 pending before him strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month positively, vide order dated 15.02.2013.
In compliance of the said direction of this Court, respondent No, 1 has passed the impugned order dated 9.3.2013. Hence, this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the documents attached with this petition.
5. The contention raised by the petitioner that respondent No, 1 refused to change the 1sttime investigation and issued directions to the respondent No, 2 for compliance of the observations made by him, is devoid of force because the order was not of refusal by respondent No, 1 rather the recommendation of Board was referred back with the direction to comply with the observation s observed by respondent No,
1. For better appreciation, Office Memo No, 71455/Inv/HC dated 16.10.2012 is reproduced as under:- ' "On perusal of the recommendation of District Standing Board Khanewal, the Addl. IGP (Inv), Punjab has observed as under:-
(i) The local police has held all the accused guilty but arrested only one accused.
(ii) The statement of abductee u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Has not been recorded.
(iii) The investigation is incomplete.
(iv) The local police to arrange the recording of statement of Rukhsand u/s 164 Cr.P.C. And to arrest the accused already held guilty.
(v) The case is five months old but the I.O. Has not arrested the accused so far and they were also not declared P.Os.
2. In view of the above, the recommendation of Board is referred back with the direction to comply with the above observations passed by Add!. IGP (Inv), Punjab."
' Second contention of the petitioner is that he submitted an application dated 25.1.2013 to respondent No, 1 requesting him that investigation should not be changed as the cases are subjudice before the learned trial Court, is again of no consequences as the said application dated 25.1.2013 was for compliance of order No, 71455/Inv/HC dated 16.10.2012 passed by respondent No, 1.
In the stated application along with other averments it was also mentioned that {{URDU TEXT}} ' Frankly legislature has not barred reinvestigation of the case even after submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on (2014 SCM R 474) and (2006 SCM R 373).
6. Order dated 9.3.2013 (Annexure-M) impugned by the petitioner cannot be termed as a revision of the earlier order or revisit by respondent No,
1. In the instant passed by respondent No, 1 vide letter No, 71455/Inv/HC dated 16.10.2012 had never gone operative, rather the recommendation of Board was referred back by the office with the direction to comply with the observations passed by Addl.
I.G.P (Investigation) Punjab, Lahore respondent No,
1. Reference may also be made to the case of "Rehan Hasan Naqvi Vs. Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority through Secretary" (2000 CLC 1535), wherein it has been held "Authority competent to make order had power under section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897 to undo the same but the order could not be withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and certa in rights were created in favour of an individual and that the principle of locus poententiae would be attracted in such situation."
7. Moreover, by virtue of section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897, the authority which can pass an order is entitled to vary, amend, add to or rescind that order. For better appreciation, section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is reproduced-as under:-
21. Power to make, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind orders, rules or bye-laws.
Where by any [Central Act] or Regulation, a power to [issue notifications], order, rules, or byelaw is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any [notifications], orders, rules or bye-laws so issued].
8. From the above discussion, I have no doubt in my mind in holding that letter No, 71455/Inv/HC dated 16.10.2012 and No, 74778/Inv/HC dated 31.10.2012 had ever created any right of either party.
Hence, this writ petition having no merits is hereby dismissed.