' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KAHN, J.---Facts of the case in brief are that respondents filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge, Khushab in his capacity as District Chairman Human Rights, Khushab alleging therein that they sold sugarcane to the petitioners, who refused to make payment thereof. On this application, the learned District and Sessions Judge exercising his authority as Chairman Human Rights passed the following impugned order:- "Though the application was moved to the undersigned as Chairman Human Rights but it is totally irrelevant as when the Court considers that this matter comes within its jurisdiction then it is immaterial that on the heading of that application which words are used. The undersigned is Chairman Human Rights as well as Justice of Peace of District Khushab. The present matter comes within the ambit of Chairman Human Rights as well as within the jurisdiction of Justice of Peace if the fraud is committed by the respondents with public at large. In this matter only inquiry can be made by the police that whether sugar mills establishment has money in the bank at the moment and are not paying the price to the cane growers then it is fraud committed with them and it is also a criminal breach of trust with the peoples of the area. In such situation from the contents of the application as well as from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners cognizable offence is made out against the respondents prima facie. Hence, SHO Police Station Saddar Jauharabad is directed to receive the application from the petitioner and register the case against them and further proceed with the matter strictly according to law."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Sessions Judge committed material illegality and irregularity while passing impugned order; that relationship between the parties is to be regulated under the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 which provides that in case of any dispute an application under section 22(2) of the Act ibid will be filed to the Cane Commissioner and under section 17 of the said Act matter may also be referred to the arbitrator; that the respondents have not followed the procedure for instituting proceedings as laid down in section- 22 of the Act ibid; that the learned Sessions Judge passed the order assuming the jurisdiction of Chairman Human Rights which authority was not conferred upon him by the Constitution or any law; that Quetta Declaration is just a pious resolve which has not been given effect by the Provincial or Federal Government; that the impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be allowed to remain intact.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents are poor cane growers who have been deprived of their money by the petitioners with mala fide, therefore, their act falls within the ambit of fraud; that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned order which needs no interference by this Court.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is evident from the record that the respondents moved an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khushab in his capacity as District Chairman Human Rights, Khushab deriving inspiration from "Quetta Declaration". Admittedly, the said Declaration was not transformed into law by the legislature, therefore, in the absence of any such legislation, the learned Sessions Judge was not vested with any authority to pass any order in that capacity.
Reliance is placed on case reported as Director City Circle GEPCO Ltd. And others v. Shahid Mir and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 403) wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has observed as under:-- ' ... The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 9-8-2011 had not been passed by him in any legal capacity as the said order had been passed by him in the so-called capacity of a Director Human Rights ostensibly deriving inspiration from the famous Quetta Declaration. The learned Judge-in-Chamber had not appreciated that by virtue of Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 "No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by under any law". The capacity of a Director Human Rights assumed and exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot in the matter was not conferred upon him by the Constitution or by or under any law and, thus, the petitioners were entirely justified in assailing this order before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through a Writ Petition and the issues of jurisdiction so brought by them before the Lahore High Court, Lahore were indeed justiciable."
' In view of above, the impugned order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khushab assuming jurisdiction as Chairman Human Rights is held to be coram non judice and without lawful authority.
6. Even otherwise, grievance of the respondents was that. They sold sugarcane to the petitioners who did not pay the price of said crop within due date. Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 and the rules framed there under provides a complete scheme for resolution of such disputes. Rule 17 of the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1950 provides as under:-- "Any dispute touching an agreement referred to in these rules shall be referred to the Cane Commissioner for decision or if he so directs to arbitration. No suit shall lie in a civil or revenue court in respect of any such dispute:"
' Rule 17(8) of the Rules ibid reads as under:-- "On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the decision or award, the decision of the Cane Commissioner, or the award of the arbitrator or arbitrators or the Provincial Government's order in appeal against an award, shall be enforced by all courts as if such decision, award, or orders in appeal were a decree of that court."
' Section-22 (i) of the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 provides as under:- "No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act, except upon a complaint made by or under the authority from the District Officer (Revenue) or Cane Commissioner or grower himself".
7. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law makes it abundantly clear that none else except Cane Commissioner is competent to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioners. Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 is a Special enactment legislated for resolution of such disputes. It is settled principle of law that a special law has overriding effect over general law. It is thus evident on the record that the respondents instead of following the procedure laid down in the special enactment chose a wrong forum for redressal of their grievance and unfortunately the learned Sessions Judge without taking into consideration ouster clause provided in section 22(i) of the Act ibid passed the impugned order which cannot be allowed to remain intact.
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and consequently the impugned order dated 20-2-2012 is set aside. The respondents may invoke the provisions of the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 for redressal of their grievance, which if so filed shall be decided by the Cane Commissioner strictly in accordance with law -expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of application by respondents. If the respondents succeed in establishing their right, then the Cane Commissioner shall exercise his powers available to him under section 6(2) of the Act ibid and act as a Collector for effecting recovery of the respondents' dues as arrears of land revenue through attachment and sale of the assets of the petitioner and/or arrest and detention of the person (s) responsible for the payment due to the respondents.