Through this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment dated 26.02.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Learned AAG at the very outset has raised the objection that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned in the Writ Petition is appeal able under section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and the same right of appeal has been provided under section 143 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. Argues that the order of sealing of the premises of the appellant has been passed by the Tehsil Office Regulation on 24.2.2014, therefore, the instant appeal is not competent in the light of proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1973.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that no order has been passed or at least no notice of passing of order has been issued to the appellant, therefore, if there is any order that has not been passed in accordance with law and no order has been communicated to the appellant, therefore, if there is any verbal order it is not an order in the eye of law and states that this appeal is competent.
4. On 5.3.2014, we directed respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to appear in person along with record. Both are present along with the record. We have gone through the original record where there is an order of sealing the distillery of the appellant-Mill by the Tehsil Officer, Regulations. The stance of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order has not been passed in accordance with law, we do not want to comment upon the validity of the order on the defects therein. As, even if, the order is defective one, appellant has right of appeal against the said order before the forum provided under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 as well as the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 and the fact that remedy of appeal was available to the writ petitioner has been noted by the learned Single Judge of this Court, therefore, for the purposes of ascertaining the jurisdiction, we are intentionally not going into the merits of the order, so it may not prejudice the case of anyone before the proper forum.
5. In this eventuality, when the appellant was having the right of appeal before the forum provided under the law, this ICA in the light of proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1973 is not competent, therefore, same stands dismissed.