OFFICE OBEJECTION ' Through this ICA, the appellant has impugned order dated 20-1-2014 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber whereby the office objection raised on the writ petition filed by the appellant (Diary No,4524 of 2014) was sustained in the following manner:--- "Office has raised an objection that the writ is not competent in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Learned counsel admits that though a remedy before the Service Tribunal is available but the same is not efficacious and therefore the instant petition has been filed.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is without substance. As such the office objection is sustained."
2. Office has now raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the instant ICA as the order under challenge in this appeal has been passed on the administrative side by the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ICA is competent in terms of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against the order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber as the office objection was sustained while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. In order to address the office objection raised by the office, what needs to be seen is the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge while deciding an objection case. In order to maintain an ICA in terms of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the order under challenge subject to the proviso of section 3 must have been passed while exercising "original civil jurisdiction" or constitutional jurisdiction" under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. Reference is made to erstwhile Rule 9(ii) of Part A of Chapter I of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Volume V which provided as follows:-- "The order of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) returning the memorandum of any suit, appeal, petition or application may be challenged before the Chief Justice or Judge nominated by the Chief Justice on administrative side whose decision shall be final and shall not be assailed in ay other proceeding before the High Court." (emphasis supplied).
6. The said Rule was amended in the year, 2000 and currently the objection cases are put up before a Judge of the High Court as a matter of long drawn practice which also draws some semblance of support from Rule 9-A of Part A of Chapter I of the Rules of Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Volume V (Revised Edition 2010). Reading of the above Rules reveal that the learned Single Judge while hearing an objection case is performing an administrative function. It is only after the office objection is overruled, that the case matures for adjudication on the judicial side and formally enters the arena of "original civil jurisdiction" or the "constitutional jurisdiction", as the case may be. At the objection stage, the case is still premature and falls within the domain of administrative jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. Reliance, with advantage, is placed on a Division Bench judgment reported as Employees Management Group, Pak-Saudi Fertilizers Limited through Authorised Representative v. Department of Pakistan in the Ministry of Privatization (Privatization Commission), Pak Secretariat, Islamabad through Secretary and 8 others (2002 YLR 1487) and an unreportedd order of this Court dated 25-10-2004 passed in Objection Case Diary No,19895 of 2004, The question regarding the scope of "original Civil jurisdiction" and the constitutional jurisdiction" has already been settled by this Court. Reliance is placed on Lahore Race v. Raja Khushbakht-ur-Rehman PLD 2008 SC 707, Brothers Steel Mills Ltd. And others v. Mian 1l as Mira and 14 others PLD 1996 SC 543 and Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi and others v. Unite Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109.
7 In this view of the matter, in terms of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not maintainable, hence, office objection is sustained.