At the very out-set, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that ha does not want to press the writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed withdrawn.
2. CM No. 2949/2014 has been filed by the applicant namely Haseeb Ullah Shahid son of Abdul Majeed, President Muslim Gymkhana Cricket Club, Bughdadi Park Gulberg-A, Faisalabad under order 1 Rule 10, CPC for becoming party to the present writ petition.
3. When the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the main petition, the learned counsel for applicant requested that his application under Order 1 - Rule 10, CPC be treated as separate writ petition. He further states that he has already affixed requisite Court fee on the application, therefore, there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to treat the application of the petitioner as independent write petition.
4. On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC is treated as write petition. Office is directed to number it accordingly.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to argued the petition. He submits that Pakistan Cricket Board constitution been impugned in the writ petition. He further states that the petitioner is aggrieved of the different clauses of the constitution of PCB wherein the restrictions have been made on the independence the election commission of PCB and due to that provision the election commissioner has become a dummy body and all powers are with Chairman of PCB. The relevant Paras of application under Order Rule 10, CPC/writ petition art re-produced hereunder:- "That the provisions of PCB Constitution are impugned in titled writ petition and the petitioner is also aggrieved free the same and any decision in the titled writ petition also effect the petitioner because the applicant club is governed by PCB Constitution and the paragraphs impugned in the it writ petition are very much relevant and heave binding of upon the petitioner club.
That this petitioner as stated above is also aggrieved from clauses of the 'constitution of PCB where the restrictions, been made on the independence of the Election commission PCB and due to that provisions, the Election Commission PCB has; become a dummy body and all the powers are; the Chairman and Governing Body, PCB who are elected from the vote of the clubs indirectly further states that this Court in M/O IPC through Secretary and hers v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCM R 1573) has ready held that demarcation cannot be carried out by the body who is o be elected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CB states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in M/O IPC through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 CIVIR 1573) has already upheld the provisions of the constitution of CB and the petitioner without disclosing this fact has challenged once gain the provision of the PCB constitution. He further referred to the judgment dated 19.08.2014 passed in W.P.No. 3644/2014 by Islamabad High Court wherein the petitioner in the said writ petition also challenged the provisions of the PCB Constitution and the same was dismissed by the Islamabad High Court with special costs. Learned counsel further relying upon Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Hameed and another (PLD 1984 SC 95) stets that respondents are trying to re-open he matter once again which is prohibited. Seeks dismissal of the application/petition with heavy costs.
7. Arguments heard required persuad "Perusal of Paragraphs No 5 & 7 of r, e writ petition reveals one has challenged the provisions of the constitution been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf 2014 SCM R 1573) as well as Islamabad High .P.No. 360/2014. The petitioner without disclosing the said challenged the Constitution of. PCB issued vide Notification No 4 4/2008-IPC-S-IIm dated 10.07.2014 again before this Court to obtain come favourable order from this Court. The objection that petitioner as not a party to the earlier proceedings is of no significance as he e rig President of a Cricketing club was well within knowledge about he proceedings carried out in relation to the PCB. Constitution.
9. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-which is to be paid to the PCB.
The petitioner is directed to deposit said cost with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with in two weeks from the date of order of this Court. The Deputy Register (judicial) shall deposit the amount with PCB. The PCB, if it deems appropriate, may consider payment of the said amount to the Pakistan Blind Cricket Council:
10. Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to emphasize that it is always painful for a Court to impose heavy cost on persons seeking to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
However, if such reprehensible conduct is ignored as in the present case, the Court would be failing in its duty to protect the interest of the bona fide litigants and its own process. It is expected that the present petitioner and other litigants will exercise utmost care in future and respect the rights of the bona fide litigants, who are the actual stakeholders of the justice system.