ORDER: Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.-- The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 31.03.2016 through which the writ petition filed by the petitioners, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
2. The summarized facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed a writ petition before the High Court while claiming therein that a joint declaration was made on 16.09.201 1 by the elected leaders of the Government of Pakistan, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtoon-Khawa, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit & Baltistan, whereby Federal and Provincial Governments decided to reaffirm their commitment to the education as priority . The Chief Executive of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir is also signatory of the Joint Declaration. It was further claimed that the National Education Policy , 2009 enforced in Pakistan was considered by the Cabinet in its meetings held on 10.12.2010 and 03.01.201 1. The same was adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir vide notification dated 05.12.2012. To achieve the desired target of the Education Policy , the bulk of share in the funds was to be provided by the Federal Government but due to financial constraints, it was refused. The Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir imposed and enhanced the rates of some taxes vide AJ&K Finance Act, 2015 to achieve the said target from its own resources. Thereaft er, on 02.08.2015, a proposal was sent by Secretary Elementary and Seconda ry Education (Schools) to the Finance Department for upgradation of different institutions and creation of posts. Through the said proposal 2266 posts conveying dif ferent categories were requisitioned.
The Finance Department agreed for creation of 1037 posts vide letter dated 02.10.2015. It was further claimed by the petitioners that the Secretary Higher Educatio n also sent a proposal on 06.08.2015 for creation of the posts and upgradation of different institutions at college side. Only 437 posts were concurred with by the Finan ce Department at college side. On 16.11.2015 the Finance Department issued a letter to the Secretary Higher Education stating therein that the Finance Division of Pakistan has not sanctioned for creation of the posts because the estimated target through imposed taxes could not be achieved. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 25.11.2015 considered the aforesaid letter of the Secretary Finance in item No.3 of the agenda under the heading of "Implementation of National Education Policy in Azad Jammu and Kashmir". It was further claimed that the Cabinet overruled the view of the Finance Department in view of the provisions of Rule 15(3) of the Rules of Business, 1985 and directed to Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education as well as Secretary Higher Education to proceed further for implementation of the National Education Policy . The decision of the Cabinet was notified on 30.11.2015. While implementing the decision, the Cabinet upgraded the institutions mentioned in the notification and also created different posts. Similarly on 26.11.2015, the Secretaries Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education also issued the notifications in the light of their proposals.
3. The petitioners prayed for declaring the decision of the Cabinet dated 25.11.2015 (circulated vide memorandum dated 30.11.2015) and the notifications Nos. Secretariat/E&SE/24500 24510/15 and SHE/1st/791-30/2015 dated 26.11.2015 as without lawful authority and for restraining the respondents from creating an exploitation throughout the Azad Jammu and Kashmir . They also sought a direction to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Gove rnment to implement the objects of notification dated 04.06.2015 and National Education Policy in letter and spirit. The writ petition was contested by the other side. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition in limine through the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2016 on the sole ground of lack of locus standi, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner s argued the case at some length.
He forcefully submitted that the National Education Policy has been adapted vide notification dated 31.12.2015 in Azad Jammu and Kashmir . The petitioners' main focus in the writ petition is issuance of direction to the respondents for implementation of the adapted Education Policy in letter and spirit and in this regard ground "D" of the writ petition is very much clear . All the petitioners are first class state subjects, some of them are political workers and also lawyers having interest in implementation of law in the State. He referred to different portions of the National Education Policy and submitted that it is a comprehensive document prescribing the manner of its implementation. The respondents while ignoring this aspect, are going to exploite the whole situation for the political purposes just to accommodate their favorites by creating posts for political gains. He submitted that according to the principle of law laid down by the superior Courts, it is not necessary that the petitioner should have a juristic right in a strict sense for filing a writ petition rather it is sufficient that the petitioner is a state subject, his rights are apprehended to be violated and he has interest in implementation of law. It is further argued that the respondents have also violated the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business, 1985. They are not acting according to the statutory provisions as they have ignored the Finance Department' s refusal for concurring with the financial demands of the so called education package. He also seriously objected to the issuance of notifications dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure "PB" and "PC") with reference to the section 38 of the Azad Jamm u and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as Act, 1974) and submitted that such acts are not permissible under this constitutional provision which in fact relates to the supplem entary budget Thus, the High Court fell in error of law while ignoring all these aspects and dismissing the writ petition in limine on the sole ground of locus standi.
5. Ch. Shaukat Aziz, Additional Advocate General, the learned counsel for the respondents forcefully defended the impugned judgment and submitted that according to the enforced law, the petitioners have got no locus standi to approach the Court regarding the issue which is between the Cabinet and the Finance department. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have prayed for implementation of the National Education Policy is concerned, the respondents have no cavil with that rather they have practically taken steps for implementation of the Education Policy . The petitioners' claim is self- contradictory . On one hand they claimed that they approached the Court for issuance of direction to implement the Education Policy and on the other hand they are opposing the practical steps taken for its implementation. So far as the argument regarding the political advantage or disadvantage is concerned, it is settled that the political issues have to be attended and settled at the political forums and the Courts should not be dragged into such issues. This argument of the petitioners cuts on both sides. If they blame the respondents for misusing the education budget or political mileage, then at the same time it can be argued that the petitioners have attempted to misuse the process of law and the Courts for political purposes to deprive the people of the better facilities of Education and the democratically elected Government from functioning according to law. He referred to the cases reported as Raja Iqbal Rasheed Minhas vs. AJ&K Council & others [2001 SCR 530], Ch. Muhammad Yasin vs. Sardar Muhammad Naeem Khan & others [2010 SCR 17], Raja Tahir Majeed Khan and others vs. Azad Govt. & others [2014 SCR 272] and Watan Party and another vs. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 2013 SC 167] in support of his contentions and submitted that the judgment of the High Court is in accordance with the spirit of law requiring no interference. No questi on of law is involved, hence, this petition alongwith the application for interim relief is not justified and liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. We have paid our utmost attent ion to the arguments advanced at bar on behalf of the parties and also gone through the record made available. Through the impugned judgment a larger bench of the High Court consisting of four Judges, has dismissed the writ petition in limine on the sole ground of locus standi of the petitioners. According to the celebrated principle of law, for determination of the locus standi, the prayed relief in the light of the contents of the writ petition has to be mainly considered. In the writ petition, the petitioners made the following prayers:- "It is therefore, most respectfully submitted that:-
(a) the item No. 3 of the Decision of the Cabinet meeting held on 25th November 2015, circulated vide memorandum No. Admin/CS-2(6)/2015 dated 30th November 2015 (Annexure ""PA", consisting 17 pages) and Notification No. Secretariat/E&SE/24500-24510/15 dated 26 November 2015 (Annexure ""PB", consisting 18 pages) and Notification No. SHE/1st/791 1-30/2015 dated 26th November 2015 (Annexure ""PC", consisting 6 pages ) commonly known as ""Education Package" may kindly be declared without lawful authority .
(b) the Respondents may kindly be restrained from creating an exploitation throughout the Azad Jammu and Kashmir with a view to achieve their political objectives.
(c) The Finance Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government may kindly be directed to implement the objects of Notification of the Finance Division Govt. of Pakistan dated 4th June 2015 as well as the Rule governing financial discipline in Azad Jammu and Kashmir in letter and spirit.
(d) The Respondents may also be directed to implement the National Education Policy 2009 as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir with the name and style of ""Kashmir Education Policy" in letter and spirit.
(e) Any other relief admissible under law may also be granted."
Whereas, the main legal ground advanced by the petitioners for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is that, in pursuance of the Cabinet decision, a formal order can only be issued while fulfilling the mandatory conditions prescribed under the provisions of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules of Business, 1985. In these provisions the main laid down condition is ""formal orders shall, nevertheless issue only after the Finance Department has exercised scrutiny over the details of the proposal".
7. The petitioners have themselves brought on record the notifications (Annexure ""PB" and ""PC") which according to their nature and subject are identical, only difference is, one is issued by the Secretariat Elementary and Secondary Education and the other is issued by the Secretariat Higher Education. Therefore, the relevant portion which is common in both the notifications is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} (underlining is ours)
The underlined phrases of the above reproduced notification clearly speaks that the requirement of detailed scrutiny of the proposals has been fulfilled. The factual averments made by the petitioners in ground "D" of memo of writ petition are as follows:- " .... The Secretariat Elementary and Secondary Education initiated a summary for the upgradation of various educational institution as well as creation of posts vide No. 751 dated 02.08.2015 (Annexure "PG) and after obtaining approval from the competent authority the aforesaid summary was transmitted to the Finance Department . The Finance Department vide its memorandum No. Finance/Expenditure /18477-801/2015 dated 02.10.2015 (Annexure "PG/1") accorded its concurrence for creation of posts Phase wise, subject to the conditions imposed in the aforesaid memorandum."
Thus, from the petitioners' own produced record it appears that the requirement of statutory provisions of Rules of Business, 1985 (referred hereinabove) have been complied with as according to the petitioners' the summary was transmitted to the Finance Department which accorded its concurrence for creation of posts Phase wise, subject to the conditions imposed in the memorandum.th
8. The memorandum, whereby the Finance Division Government of Pakistan impo sed ban in creating posts in AJ&K has also been reproduced in ground (B) of writ petition which reads as follows:- "It is added, that while conveying the revise d estimates 2014-15 and budget estimates 2015-16, it was clearly mentioned that no concurrence for creation / up-gradation of posts shall be made unless and until the targets set for AJ&K' s own receipts/income tax receipts are achieved and a certificate to this effect is issued by the Secretary , Finance Department, AJ&K."
In this context so far the objection of Finance Division of Pakistan according to the referred memorandum is concerned, as per the provisions of Act, 1974, neither the Finance Department of Pakistan has been assigned any responsibility or duty relating to the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir , nor the petitioners have any locus standi to represent it. These are just administrative matters between the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Finance Division of Pakistan.
9. The other main legal ground advan ced in the writ petition is violation of provisions of sub-section (5) of section 38 of the Act, 1974. The version of the petitioners that without sanction of supplementar y budget, the Government cannot authorize the expenditure from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Consolidated Fund, appears to be misconceived. The relevant provisions of subsection (5) of section 38 of Act, 1974 read as follows:- "(5) If in respect of any financial year it is found:
(a) that the amount authorized to be expended for a particular service for the current financial year is insuf ficient, or that need has arisen for expenditure upon some new service not included in the Annual Budget for that year; or
(b) that any money has been spent on any service during a financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service for that year; the Government shall have power to authorize expenditure from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Consolidated Fund and shall cause to be laid before the Assembly a Budget or, as the case may be, and excess Budget, setting the amount of that expenditure, and the provisions of this section shall apply to those budgets as they apply to the Annual Budget."
(underlining is ours)
The bare reading of this statutory provision clearly speaks that the Government shall have power to authorize expenditure from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Consolidated Fund and shall cause to be laid before the Assembly a Budget or, as the case may be, and excess Budget, setting the amount of that expenditure. Thus, it is clear that the matters of expending amount from Consolidated Fund to meet the insuf ficiency of the allocated funds or providing some new service not included in the Annual Budget, subject to the condition that the expenditure shall be laid before the Assembly as a Budget; fall within the domain of the Government. Even otherwise, according to the constitutional spirit, specially , sub-section (3) of section 12 of Act, 1974, the Government consists of Prime Minister and the Ministers who are collec tively responsible to the Assembly .
The Constitution clearly provides more effective representative exalted forum to attend all the issues and take necessary steps to make the decisions.
10. Under the tracheotomy of powers and Constitutional scheme, the Courts are not supposed to interfere in the domain of other institutions or authorities unless they travel beyond their constitutional or legal domain. As in the instant case, the issues raised in the writ petition clearly within fall the domain of the Government and Legislative Assembly , thus the Courts cannot pre-empt or interfere in their domain.
11. According to the prayer clauses of the writ petition (reproduced hereinabove), on one hand, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction for implementation of the National Education Policy , 2009 as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir with the name and style of ""Kashmir Education Policy" and on the other hand they have requested the Court to declare the circular dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure ""PA") relating to the decision of the Cabinet meeting held on 25.11.2015 without lawful authority . In the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet, numerous agenda items have been discussed including item No. 3 and the decisions have been taken. However , the decision relating to the issue involved in this case on item No. 3 relating to Education Policy reads as follows:- ""Decision: After detailed deliberation, the Cabinet by overruling the view point/sanctions of Finance Department in term of Rule 15(3) of the Rules of Business, directed Secretary Higher Education and Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education to notify the creation of posts for implementation on National Education Policy 2009, in letter and spirit."
(underlining is ours)
This decision speaks that it has been taken for implementation of the Education Policy , 2009.
12. The record furnished by the petitioners itself speaks that the Cabinet has taken the decision while exercising authority conferred upon it under the provisions of section 12 of the Act, 1974 read with Rule 15(3) of the Rules of Business, 1985. The petitioners have failed to point out that how the decision taken by the Cabine t is against law and they have any locus standi to challenge the same. Same like, as observed hereinabove, the prayers made by the petitioners are self- destructive. In one breath, they approached the Court for directing the respondents to implement the National Education Policy and declaring the steps taken for implementation of the Education policy as null and void. Thus, in view of the averments of their writ petition in juxtaposition with the relief sought in the payer clauses (a), (c) and (d), they have got no locus standi according to the statutory provisions of section 44 of Act, 1974. So far as the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) is concerned, it has already been held that for resolution of such like issues which are purely of political nature, political forums are proper and not the Courts.
13. For the above stated reasons, according to the petitioners' own averments made in the memo of writ petition, neither they have got any locus standi nor such self-contradictory and self-destructive writ petition is maintainable. The High Court has rightly refused to entertain such petition. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity . No question of law is involved, therefore, grant of leave is not justified.
Therefore, finding no force this petition alongwith application for interim relief stands dismissed.