' This single judgment decides upon the common issues arising in the aforementioned writ petitions. The impugned orders in the petitions are the orders passed by the (i) Scrutiny Committee, PCB (ii) Election Commissioner, PCB as well as the orders of the (iii) Independent Arbitrator, PCB.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in all the petitions is common, however the petitioners have come to this Court at different stages. The petitioners shown in the aforementioned Annexure-A have come against the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 10.6.2013. The petitioners shown in Annexure-B have come against the order of the Election Commissioner, PCB dated 4.1.2012, 19.7.2013 and the petitioners in Annexure-C have come against the order of the Independent Arbitrator, PCB dated 21.5.2012, 22.5.2012 and 24.5.2012.
3. The petitioners are all cricket clubs which have been declared 'inactive' through the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The ease of the petitioners is that the Scrutiny Committee passed a nonspeaking order contrary to the record, without recording any evidence and collecting any information about the status of the petitioner clubs. Learned counsel for the petitioners detailed in Annexure 'A' argued that the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 10.6.2013 is a nonspeaking order. The petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing nor was any evidence recorded before passing the impugned orders. The Scrutiny Committee in a slipshod manner passed the impugned order without detailing as to why the petitioners have been declared as 'inactive' clubs.
Learned counsel further argued that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is contrary to the record because the petitioner's clubs fulfills the criteria as stipulated in the Constitution of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB Constitution) for 'active' clubs.
4. The petitioners who have come against the orders of the Election Commissioner and the Independent Arbitrator are essentially aggrieved by the orders wherein they have upheld the orders of the Scrutiny Committee and maintained the status of the petitioners as an 'inactive' clubs. The grievance of these petitioners as mentioned in Annexure 'B' and ' C' is that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is contrary to the PCB Constitution. They have also agitated the ground that since the District Cricket Association did not organize any tournament, therefore the petitioners should not have been made responsible for not playing any tournament. They have also argued that the orders of the Election Commissioner and the Independent Arbitrator are contrary to the record.
5. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the Respondent PCB. Learned counsels for the Respondent PCB argued that the petitions have been filed on behalf of the cricket clubs, however no resolution has been appended with the instant petitions to show that the president of the cricket club has been authorized to file the instant petitions. He further argued that the Province of Punjab has not been impleaded as necessary party which is a fatal defect and on this ground alone the petitions merit dismissal. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners have impugned the decisions of the Scrutiny Committee, however, the instructions/guidelines and the procedure of the Scrutiny Committee are not statutory in nature, hence these petitions ate not maintainable, lie further argued that against the order of the Scrutiny Committee the petitioners have a right to file an appeal under Para 40(2) of Part VIII (Dispute Resolutions or Appeals) of the PCB Constitution which right of appeal has not been availed. He further argued that against the decision of the Election Commissioner, PCB, another appeal lies before the Independent Arbitrator in terms of Para 40(6) of Part VIII (Dispute Resolutions or Appeals) bf the PCB Constitution. The petitioners mentioned in Annexure 'A' have come directly to the Court against the orders of the Scrutiny Committee without availing remedy before the Election Commissioner and the Independent Arbitrator. Both remedies are adequate and efficacious remedies which should have been availed by the petitioners. The petitioners named in Annexure 'B' and 'C' have availed their remedies and cannot re-agitate their case through the instant writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent PCB argued that the criteria and the guidelines of the scrutiny procedure have been set out under the Necessary Instructions/Guidelines for Clubs Appearing in PCB Scrutiny (Scrutiny Guidelines). In terms of the said Scrutiny Guidelines the cricket club provides its information in the Club Scrutiny Form. The Scrutiny Committee visits the site of the cricket club and thereafter physically verifies the information provided by the cricket club in the Club Scrutiny Forms. Learned counsel argued that each of the petitioners have filled the Club Scrutiny Form (2013) and in W.P. Nos.14127, 14128, 16098 of 2012 and W.P. No. 842/2014 Club Scrutiny Form (2011) in which they have provided all the relevant data in relation to their club such as the number of players, cricket field and its playing facilities. The Scrutiny Committee makes a spot inspection to verify whether the playing facilities and thee players of the club are in terms of the criteria given in the Scrutiny Guidelines and also are in terms 'of the information provided by the clubs itself in the Club Scrutiny Forms.. He argued that it is necessary to determine whether or not the cricket club is 'active' or 'inactive' for the purposes of election because an 'active' club is eligible to vote .In terms of Part V of the PCB Constitution. Learned counsel argued that if the club does not meet the stipulated criteria it is declared as 'inactive' club, hence it cannot vote. Learned counsel argued that in the cases of the petitioners in W.P. No. 30655, 30656, 30658, 30659, 30660, 30661, 30662, 30663 and 30673 of 2013, the petitioners have availed the remedy of appeal before the Election Commissioner, PCB but this fact has not been disclosed in the Petition. Learned counsel further argued that the issues raised in the instant petitions are of a factual nature and as such cannot be decided in a constitutional petition.
7. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 4, 6 and 7 in W.P. Nos.20103, 30654 and 30056 of 2013. Learned counsel for the stated Respondents have provided the complete record of the tournaments held and the clubs that have played those tournaments.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
9. The petitioners in Annexures A, B, C claim that the Scrutiny Committee passed its order dated 10.6.2013 hastily without recording evidence and collecting information and totally contrary to the PCB Constitution. The PCB Constitution defines an 'active' club in Paragraph 2(ii). An 'active' club has to be scrutinized in order to be declared eligible for the elections of the Regional District Associations. An 'active' club has the right to vote in terms of Paragraph.5 of Part-V of the PCB Constitution which is reproduced below: "The BOG shall appoint the scrutiny committees to scrutinize eligible clubs and associations for holding elections".
' The PCB Constitution does not set out the procedure in relation to the process of scrutiny. However the respondents have framed the Scrutiny Guidelines which provides for the criteria that the club has to be meet in order to be declared an 'active' 'club. It is an internal document made for the benefit of the clubs. A review of the Scrutiny Guidelines shows that it essentially requires the cricket club to verify the information provided for by the clubs with respect to its players data, its playing facilities and its playing activities. In terms of the record produced by the learned counsel for the Respondent PCB, the petitioners all filled in their Club Scrutiny Form (2013) and Club Scrutiny Form (2011) in which they have provided their data. The Scrutiny Committee visited the club at its playing site to ensure that the information so provided is correct. Again the data provided on the Club Scrutiny Forms (2013) and (2011) was verified. On the basis of the information provided a decision was takes whether the petitioner's club satisfied the criteria for being declared an 'active club'. After the inspection at site, the Scrutiny Committee found that the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements' Hence the clubs were declared 'inactive'. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the process conducted in the year 2013 or 2011 with respect to the scrutiny of the petitioners clubs was mala fide or against the mandate of the PCB Constitution. The petitioners have impugned the scrutiny process on the ground that no recording of evidence took place and that information was not collected. Furthermore the order was passed in a slipshod manner.
However to the mind of this Court these grounds also do not merit any consideration because the scrutiny process does not require recording of evidence. The purpose of scrutiny is to verify whether the club meets the criteria of an ' active club'. The Scrutiny Committee verifies the team, its playing facilities and ground available as well as tournaments played from the data given by the petitioners themselves in the Club Scrutiny Form (2013) and (2011). Hence the information is provided by the petitioners and the Scrutiny Committee verifies its correctness. If the petitioners dispute the findings of thee Scrutiny Committee then remedy of appeal before the Election Commissioner is available and thereafter before the Independent Arbitrator. The petitioners detailed in Annexure 'A' have come directly against the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The issues raised in these petitions are of factual nature and efficacious remedy is available to them before the Election Commissioner and then before the Independent Arbitrator under the PCB Constitution, hence these petitions are not maintainable. So far as the petitioners detailed in Annexures 'B' and 'C are concerned, they have also come against the order of the Scrutiny Committee which they challenged before the Election Commissioner and the Independent Arbitrator. Again the issues raised are factual in nature and these petitioners have availed the remedy provided under the PCB Constitution. Therefore these petitioners cannot re-agitate the same issue through these Writ Petitions.
10. Even otherwise several preliminary objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent PCB which require adjudication. In the first instance they argued that the petitions have been filed by the cricket clubs through their presidents without due authorization. Review of the record of each of the instant petitions except W.P. No. 30580/2013 shows that the petitioners are all cricket clubs who have filed the petitions through their presidents, without any authorization in favour of the president. There is merit in this objection as the club had to have authorized the president before he could have instituted the instant petitions.
11. The second objection raised is that the Province of Punjab has not been made a party in any of the petitions and this is fatal to the petitions. This objection also has merit in view of the dicta laid down in the case titled 'Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others vs. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Husain Khan Magsi and others' (2010 SCM R 115) and 'The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab vs. Hafiz Ikram Saeed and others' (2013 SCM R 1045) the Province or the Federation must be impleaded as a party while invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
12. It is further noted that the petitioners in W.P. No. 842/2014 have impugned the scrutiny process conducted in the year 2011. After the order of the Scrutiny Committee they filed an appeal before the Election Commissioner, which was decided on 4.1.2012. It is noted that the petition is hit by the laches and further that alter the 2011 scrutiny, the scrutiny of 2013 has also taken place. Therefore, there is no merit in these petitions.
13. It is also noted that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.14127 and 14128 of 2012 have impugned the scrutiny process of 2011. Thereafter they filed the appeals before the Election Commissioner who dismissed their appeals. Thereafter they availed the remedy before the Independent Arbitrator. These petitioners seek the benefit of order passed in W.P. No. 262/2014. However the said order cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners because they have availed their remedy against the order of the Scrutiny Committee in 2011. Both the Election Commissioner and the Independent Arbitrator have dismissed their appeals and found that they are 'inactive' clubs. Therefore the process of scrutiny and the availing of remedy against the same has been completed and no illegality has been made out in the said orders.
14. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Petitions are dismissed.