MAHMOOD AHMED BHATTI, J.---Muhammad Iqbal, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-- "the respondents be directed to act in accordance with law and disburse the previous funds of petitioner's school accordingly and affiliation/partnership of petitioner's school may remain intact also.
It is also prayed that the proceeding for cancellation of, affiliation/partnership of petitioner's school may also be stopped in the best interest of justice and to secure and promote the basic fundamental rights."
2. The facts, in brief, as set out in the writ petition are that the petitioner is owner of Al-Rehman Grammar School (registered), located in Chak No,88/EB, District Vehari. The Punjab Education Foundation was established under the Punjab Foundation Act, 2004 to promote quality education through Public-Private Partnership, encourage and support the efforts of private sector through technical and financial assistance, innovate and develop new instruments and enable private educational institutions to champion wider educational opportunities at affordable cost to the poor. It is the claim of the petitioner that he fulfilled all the criteria, making him eligible to derive benefits under the aforesaid scheme. Accordingly, he moved an application, as a result whereof he was enlisted with Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore. Thereafter, he established contact with respondent No,3, Director, Foundation Assisted Schools (FAS), Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore, who instead of encouraging the petitioner levelled baseless and serious allegations against him.
Be that as it may, respondent No,3 held a meeting in his office on 9-6-2012 to broach the subject. At the time, the alleged secret partners of the petitioner were also in attendance. According to the petitioner, respondent No,3 persisted in his allegations, but could not substantiate the same.
Irrespective of the discussion made at the aforesaid meeting, the petitioner received a letter bearing No, PEF/FAS/2013-1624 dated 22-3-2013, urging that the, prospective partners were to observe the following standards: First, the partners shall admit those children to school between the ages of 5 to 16, who have never been to school hitherto and who would be admitted in class one. Second, the children who discontinued their studies in any school for more than three months, would be required to furnish school leaving certificate where they were earlier studying. Another rider was added that in both the cases an affidavit of the parents of the children falling in the above two categories would be obtained.
3. The petitioner has made the claim that in response to the aforementioned letter issued by respondent No,3, he came up with his version. In point of fact, the petitioner had suggested some guidelines to improve upon the standards set by respondent No,3. Instead of appreciating the gesture made by the petitioner, respondent No,3 is said to have felt offended. Given these developments, the petitioner was left with no option but to approach respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Punjab Education Foundation and its Managing Director) directly but to no avail.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was making sincere, genuine and dedicated efforts to help improve the standard of education with the assistance of respondents Nos.1 to 3, but motives were ascribed to him without any rhyme or reason, thereby frustrating his attempts and discouraging him in his mission to spread education in every nook and corner.
5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be disbursed amounts by the respondents under the Public-Private Partnership Education Scheme launched by the Government of the Punjab through Punjab Education Foundation, respondent No,
1. He stresses that the respondents could not refuse to enlist him for the funds, which are so essential to the running of chain of schools affiliated with the petitioner, who have no objectives other than benefiting the poor and needy students. In the course of his arguments, learned counsel wish that this Court make investigation into the allegations levelled by respondent No,3 against the petitioner.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were refuted and controverted vehemently by Ms. Uzma Saeed, Advocate/Additional Director Legal, Punjab Education Foundation, who appeared on behalf of the respondents. She described the petitioner and his associates as'
Lutto and Phuto group. She was at pains to explain that the petitioner has already derived benefits under the Public-Private Partnership Scheme. Now, he intended to extend his tentacles. He has entered into a partnership with a number of schools and promised their administration that he would arrange funds for them under the Public-Private Partnership Scheme, which according to her were to be distributed among the Lutto and Phuto group. She questioned the altruistic objectives to be achieved by the petitioner and his associates. She buttressed her arguments by relying heavily on the proceedings of 5th meeting of appellate committee, which was annexed by the respondents to their para-wise comments. In order to keep the things in perspective, the relevant proceedings are reproduce for ready reference: "Agenda Item No,1 The proceedings of 5th meeting of Appellate Committee started with the discussion of remaining 6 "Not Reconunended" schools of 3 districts (i,e, Vehari, Multan and Khanewal). School-wise discussion is summarized as below: Allegations Owner's Response Committee's Remarks Owner of this school has enticedHidden partnerships among different actors have been revealed. TheyIt has been substantiated that Mr. Iqbal (owner) had hidden partnerships with a few applicant schools of Phase VII to secure FAS partnerships by helping them qualify QAT & physical infrastructure criteria of PEF. In return, the owner asked to get a substantial share in monthly financial assistance of the school.conspired together to trap prospective partner schools and extort money through forced partnerships. Various members of this fraudulent group (Owner of Al Rehman Grammar School is leader of this group) confessed the wrongdoings.Abdul Latif, Muhammad Ashraf (owner of Ghazali Islamia 'Public School) & Noor Bibi. However, on 15th of June, 2012, Muhammad Ashraf & Abdul Latif were replaced by Wali Muhammad & Saeed Ahmed, as per revised partnership deed. FAS agreement of Al Rehman Grammar School was signed with Mr. Iqbal, however, it was revealed that monthly financial assistance of this school was equally divided among its hidden partners.
The Committee pointed out that they concealed the real facts and their mutual partnerships kept on changing among different partners, which makes the matter distrustful.
DECISION: FAS agreement of the school may be cancelled with immediate effect.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uzma Saeed, Advocate/Additional Director Legal, Punjab Education Foundation for the respondents and also gone through the record with their assistance.
8. I have no hesitance in holding that the subject matter of the writ petition calls for full-fledged enquiry into the allegations and counter-allegations. This does not fall within the domain of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Such an enquiry can only be made by a Civil Court after holding a fully-fledged trial. Even otherwise, this Court cannot order the respondents to disburse public funds to the petitioner just on his asking. He might be pursuing a noble cause and his objectives might be altruistic, but unless he satisfies the standards and parameters laid down by the respondents, he and his associates cannot be declared eligible for the support under Public- Private Partnership Scheme of Education launched by the Government of the Punjab through respondent No,
1. As things stand, serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, and it is the apprehension of the respondents that if the public funds were provided to him he would stash them away, thereby misappropriating and defalcating the funds, which can be utilized to fulfill the needs of other eligible partners. In the circumstances, if there is any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, he had better institute a civil suit to get himself vindicated. As far the instant writ petition, the same is not maintainable for the simple reason that factual controversies cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction.
9. For what has been stated above, this petition is devoid of any merits, which is dismissed.