' GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner prays as under:--
(a) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to retain the possession of Railway Bungalow No,218 (Old), Adam Road, Karachi Cantt. till such time he has been provided the accommodation by the department, where the petitioner is working.
(b) To restrain the respondents, their servants, agents, subordinates, etc. claiming through or under them from taking steps as to getting the Railway Bungalow No,218 (Old) Adam Road, Karachi Cantt. vacated from the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 4-8-1999, he was posted as Superintendent Railway Police, Karachi and was allotted Railway Bungalow No,218, Adam Road, Karachi Cantt., which was occupied by him on 18-10-1999. Subsequently, he was transferred to Sindh Police on 1-1-2000 but the said accommodation remained in his occupation. According to the petitioner he deposited an amount of Rs,316,656 in the account of Pakistan Railways towards commercial rent at the rate of Rs,4398 per month for the period from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2006 as proposed by the respondent in Para-8 in their comments submitted in C.P No,D-1782 of 2000 earlier filed by the petitioner before this Court.
3. Besides making the payment of Rs,4398 per month towards commercial rent fixed by the respondent No,1, an amount of Rs,8856 towards house rent and Rs,1469 being 5% of the basic pay was also continously deducted from the monthly salaries of the petitioner till June, 2008 and such deduction at the above rates from the salary of the petitioner along with other government servants was increased from time to time. Further case of the petitioner is that he sent the cheques amounting to Rs,1,18,746 to respondent No,1 in his official capacity through his letter No,SSP/S/SB/PA/108-9, dated 19-9-2008, but subsequently was returned to the petitioner on 21-9- 2008 with the plea that.commercial rent as calculated previously is unrealistic and now the same will be calculated as per Policy.
4. The petitioner again sent another Cheque on 11-1-2011 for an amount of Rs,2,77,074 to the respondent towards outstanding commercial rent for the period from 1-4-2006 to 30-6-2011 in his official capacity vide Letter No,SMB/PA/123/2011, dated 7-1-2011. This cheque was also returned by the respondent No,1 through Letter dated 15-1-2011 with the remarks that commercial rent be deposited on its higher side as compared to deposited/calculated by the petitioner in his letter referred above.
4. The petitioner again sent another cheque/pay order on 16-4-2013 for an amount of Rs,3,73830 to Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, Karachi for outstanding commercial rent for the period from 1-4-2006 to 30-4-2013 in his official capacity vide Letter No,D.I.G./Trf/ Hyd/1019421/2013 dated 2-5-2013 and further the case of the petitioner is that despite remitting the commercial rent as determined by the respondent No,1 yet the same was repeatedly declined on the so called plea that commercial rent as calculated previously is unrealistic and is to be deposited as on much higher side though such calculation was made by respondent No,1 themselves. Further the claim of the petitioner is that demand of the respondent No,1 as Rs,62,500 per month w.e.f, 1-4-2000 to date instead of Rs,4398 per month has no justification is irrational and unrealistic and is clear violation of rent restriction laws which allows maximum 10% increase of the residential accommodation per month, whereas, the enhancement so claimed by the respondent No,1 is more than 10% and is also from retrospective effect, therefore, this petition was filed by him with the prayer as mentioned above.
6. Heard Mr. Abdul Salam Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that though the Bungalow was allotted to the petitioner while he was posted as Superintendent Railway Police, Karachi on 4-8-1999 and was occupied by him on 18-10-1999 and he remained Superintendent Railway Police, Karachi up to 1-1-2000 and though presently he is not serving in the Railway Police Department but retaining the Bungalow with him not to be treated as unauthorized encroachment but at most unauthorized occupation, hence the case of the petitioner is not covered with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Case No,18 of 2011. He has reproduced the relevant portion of the judgment in Para-13 of the petition which reads as follows:-- "It is informed by Mr. Ayaz Sadiq, M.N.A. that immovable properties of the Railway Department situated in different provinces has been encroached by different agencies including defence, Rangers, F. C. and private persons. Detail report in this behalf be submitted to the registrar of this court within seven days, who shall forward the same to all the chief secretaries for ensuring that the property belonging to the railway department is handed over to them."
7. He further submits that the respondent No,1 wrote a letter dated 3-7-2013 to the Registrar of this Court and on that letter the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South was directed to depute a Magistrate for over-seeing the vacation of the subject bungalow of Pakistan Railway and the Deputy Inspector-General South Zone Karachi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Karachi South were directed to personally accompany with the Magistrate along with the applicant/Railway Administration. He also submitted that though repeatedly amount outstanding as rent of the bungalow was sent by the petitioner to the Railway Authorities but if the same was not accepted by them then there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. He also referred No Objection Certificate issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Pakistan Railways for obtaining individual electric service connection from KESC of the Railway Bungalow under subject, annexed at Page-35 of the petition and lastly he submitted that the petitioner has not provided any residence by Sindh Police Department, therefore, he is entitled to retain the possession of the said Bungalow, till such time he has been provided the accommodation and till that time the respondent be restrained from claiming and taking back the possession of the said Bungalow.
8. We have perused the file. The Bungalows' of the respondent No,1 are for residential purposes of employees of the Railway department. It was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1999 while he was posted as Superintendent Railway Police, Karachi and subsequently he was transferred to Sindh Police on 1-1-2000 and thereafter he is no more employee of the Railway Department hence retaining the same bungalow by him from the date of his transfer as a Superintendent Railway Police, Karachi on 1-1-2000 to Sindh Police is unauthorized and without any policy of the Railway Department, therefore the respondent No,1 was fully justified in not accepting the rent sent by the petitioner through various cheques/pay orders. Admittedly, the petitioner is occupying and enjoying the bungalow since 1-1-2000. without payment any rent or consideration to Pakistan Railway. Entitlement of the petitioner to occupy the Bungalow from the date of his transfer from Railway Department on 1-1-2000 till to date has not been accepted by the Railway Authorities.
Issuance of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner by Divisional Electrical Engineer Karachi for connection from KESC at bungalow under dispute itself is illegal as the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Pakistan Railway has no authority to issue such No Objection Certificate and on the basis of this NOC the entitlement of the petitioner for the said Bungalow cannot be treated as legal.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has impugned in this petition the direction issued by the Registrar of this Court to the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, directing him to depute a Magistrate in order to get the subject bungalow vacated from the petitioner. Such direction was issued by the Registrar of this Court in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. The direction of the Registrar was, therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. In addition to the above discussion about the entitlement of the petitioner, this petition is not maintainable also on this ground as no Bench of the High Court can issue a writ against another Bench of the same High Court or for that matter against another High Court, and no writ lies either against High Court or the Supreme Court. This view expressed by us is fortified by the cases of Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1976 SC 315 and Muhammad Imran v. Peshawar High Court Peshawar, through Registrar and 2 others 2011 PLC (CS.)
1465.
10. In the case of Abrar Hassan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold inter alia that the policy of law that no writ will issue to a High Court and Supreme Court is based on sound principles; and if one Judge of a High Court were to issue a writ to another Judge under Article 199 the Judge to whom the writ is issued, may in exercise of the same jurisdiction nullify the writ. In the case of Muhammad Imran (supra), it was held inter alia by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court that Article 192 of the Constitution emphatically specify the constituents of a High Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court it is well-settled that each Judge of the High Court acts as High Court, and any direction or order by the Single Bench or for that matter by the Division Bench, would amount to its issuance against a Judge who is the component of a High Court; the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court whether in a Bench of a Single Judge or the Bench of more Judges, the order would be expressed in the name of High Court and not in the name of individual Judge, while interpreting Article 199(5) of the Constitution with regard to the definition "person", included Supreme Court or High Court or a Tribunal under the law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan from its purview, no writ or order can be issued to the High Court or Supreme Court under Article 199 of the Constitution as it amounts issuance of the same against the Supreme Court or High Court itself and the administrative or executive orders passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Registrar while acting under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, also enjoy the protection falling under the ambit of Article 199(5) of the Constitution.
11. This matter was heard and reserved by us on 26-7-2013, and then it was ordered to be fixed for re-hearing on 1-8-2013 as we required some clarification from the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 1-8-2013,the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner does not wish to press this petition any further as he has handed over the possession of the bungalow in question to the Magistrate who was deputed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court to take over the possession of the said bungalow from the petitioner. He requested that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition. The matter was again reserved by us. From the above discussion, we are of the firm view that this petition is not maintainable and in fact is a clear and gross abuse of the process of this Court. The request of the petitioner for withdrawal of this petition is, therefore, rejected, and the petition'along with the listed applications is dismissed in limine with cost of Rs,25,000.00 to be deposited by the petitioner in the Sindh High Court Bar Pro Bono Fund within 15 days.
12. This petition should not have been entertained or registered by the office in the first instance.
The Registrar of this Court is directed to place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for taking action, if his lordship deems fit and proper, against such negligent staff/employees of this Court who were responsible for entertaining and registering this Constitutional Petition against the order passed by the Registrar of this Court in compliance of his lordship's order.