Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Nadeem Abbas petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 27.5.2015 whereby the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Kallur Kot agreed with the cancellation report prepared by the police in case FIR No.136 dated 12.4.2015, under Section 420/468/471 registered at Police Station Kallur Kot.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of one Mian Ghulam Rasool, Assistant Commissioner Kallur Kot District Bhakkar alleging therein that Sajid Ali respondent No.3 got prepared his domicile of Tehsil Kallur Kot District Bhakkar by deceitful means and thereby succeeded to get employment as Educator and usurped right of the residents of District Bhakkar. During investigation the cancellation report was prepared by the police on 10.5.2015 and the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Kallur Kot District Bhakkar agreed with the cancellation report prepared by the police vide impugned order dated 27.5.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order without going through the reports submitted by the Lumbardar, Halqa Patwari and the Assistant Commissioner, which is based on surmises and conjectures; that respondent No.3 got prepared I.D. Card dated 12.1.2015 and domicile dated 26.1.2015 after publication for jobs in the newspaper; that the petitioner had joined as SSE on merit being permanently resident of Kallur Kot District Bhakkar but respondent No.3, who is permanent resident of D.I. Khan had got changed his permanent residence in order to obtain the said post through fraud and misrepresentation by infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner and that the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and has been passed without assigning the reasons, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither complainant of the FIR nor is he prosecution witness in this case. He has challenged the vires of the impugned order irrespective of the fact that he was alien to the proceedings before the police as well as before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Article 199 (a)(ii) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is reproduced for ready reference:- "Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law-
(a) On application of any aggrieved party, make an order----
(i) Directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or
(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or
(b) -----
6. In judgment reported as "Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination vs. Major (R) Ahmad Nadeem Sadal and others (2014 CLC 600 [Islamabad])", it has been held that the "aggrieved person" was a person who had suffered a legal grievance; against whom a decision had been pronounced, which had wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused him something which he was legally entitled to- ---Petitioner invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 had to establish that any of his legal or fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution had been violated resulting in legal loss.
7. In order to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the appellant must be an aggrieved person and must have a locus standi to avail such jurisdiction. He is neither complainant nor witness in this case. There is nothing on record that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed any illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned order, which is in accordance with law. The appellant has an alternate remedy of filing application under Police Order 2002 before the concerned quarter, if he is not satisfied from the investigation conducted by the police or to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the documents of respondent No.3.
8. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, it is not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case especially when the adequate remedy in the form of private complaint as well as filing of civil suit being available to the petitioner. Reliance can be placed in case "Habibullah vs. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan & others" (2005 SCM R 951) and "Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti" (PLD 2010 SC 691) in this behalf.
9. The question as to whether the documents in question were forged and the investigating agency has not properly investigated the matter, comes within the area of disputed question of facts which cannot be decided by this Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction as the same requires recording of evidence. Reliance is placed on "Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem vs. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192)". Therefore, the writ petition cannot proceed further. The efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner in the form of filing private complaint, approaching the police hierarchy under Police Order, 2002 or to approach the Civil Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the impugned order has effected the petitioner, who statedly has also been appointed as Educator. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any vested right of the petitioner to challenge the judicial order, which substantially has not effected any legal right of the petitioner.
In view of above, the writ petition in hand is incompetent, the same stands dismissed in limine.