MUSARRAT HILALI, J.---Through this single judgement, we intend to dispose of the instant Writ Petition as well as the connected Writ Petition No, 836-P/2015 titled "University of Swat through Registrar v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" as both have been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and pertain to the same subject matter.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that the petitioner/university was established under Article 247 (4) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and is functional under the University of Swat Regulation, 2010 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regulation No,11 2019) and the Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is its Chancellor. In January, 2013 a motion was brought in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assembly against the Vice Chancellor of the petitioner/university by Dr. Hidayat Ali, MPA, PK-86 and Syed Jafar Shah, PK-85, both from Swat for not constituting senate of the University under the Regulation and having not made a request to the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly for nominating one member of the Provincial Assembly to the Senate but the said motion was not honoured and dismissed. The said MPAs in November, 2014 moved an adjournment motion bearing No,104 alleging mismanagement in the University and referred to Standing Committee No,8 who asked comments from the Secretary Higher Education Department vide letter dated 26-11-2014 which was replied in detail wherein the petitioner stated that the matter is clearly outside the executive authority of the province. The Standing Committee No,8 wrote a letter to Ministry Higher Education to conduct an inquiry against the administration of the university in light of the allegations of the said MPAs and the vice-chancellor of the university was asked to submit his para-wise reply to statement of allegations which was accordingly submitted wherein the petitioner stated that the regulation No,11 of 2010 may be followed.
Thereafter the Department of Higher Education asked for more record from the petitioner and in pursuance of the decision of Standing Committee No,8 and vide notification dated 12-3-2015, the Higher Education department is initiating another inquiry for probing into the matter of petitioner.
Being aggrieved from the above actions and notification, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,836 of 2015 (connected writ petition) wherein this court ordered the inquiry committee to continue its proceedings but not to pass any order detrimental to the university. The respondent No,2 filed an application before the respondent No,3 who directed the Registrar of the University to provide the required record to respondent No,2. It has been averred in the petition that already an inquiry is in process and despite provision of the relevant record/information to the inquiry committee, another inquiry has been initiated by the respondents who cannot proceed with the same legally as the petitioner is an autonomous body. Being aggrieved, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the university of Swat is a statutory body and is created by Regulation II of 2010; that the said regulation has been issued by the governor with the consultation of the President of Pakistan in terms of Article 247(4) of the Constitution; that the Vice-Chancellor of the university has been called time and again by the members of the provincial assembly and also an inquiry under the Anti Corruption Act, 1947 has been initiated against the petitioner; that the Vice-Chancellor of the petitioner university was directed to provide the whole record concerning the financial issues of the university and also detained some of the employees of the university; that the actions taken by the respondents are illegal, unlawful and against the Constitution as the act under which Vice Chancellor and the employees of the petitioner university are interrogated has not been extended to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas where the petitioner university is located. Learned counsel summed up his arguments and submitted that the inquiries, investigation, interrogation initiated by the respondents be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
4. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by the Additional Advocate General, KPK submitted that the petitioner university in no manner is an aggrieved person; that the petitioner university has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition; that the issue was raised specifically against the Vice Chancellor and not the university; that the allegations are person specific and have been dropped after the completion of his tenure as a Vice-Chancellor. Hence they prayed for dismissal of this writ petition being not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6 The question raised before us is whether the Anti-corruption establishment of the provincial government or any other functionary would have jurisdiction in relation to the university of Swat located in the provincially administered tribal area.
The Constitution of Pakistan in Chapter-3 of Part-XII provides for provisions relating to the governing and management of tribal areas. Article 246 describes the status of Provincially Administered Tribal Area while Article 247 provides for exceptions and restrictions on application of the Constitution to the tribal area. Sub-Article 1 of Article 247 talks about the extension of executive authority of Federation to the Federally Administered Tribal Area and of the province to the Provincially Administered Tribal Area. However the Article contains the restrictive words "subject to the constitution" hence by using these words, the framers of constitution have made the extension of the executive authority to the tribal area conditional. Under sub-Article (4) of Article 247, law may be extended to Federally Administered Tribal Area with the approval of President of Pakistan while the governor has the mandate parallel to the authority of the president over the Federally Administered Tribal Area.
7. It is an elementary rule of statutory construction that if the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, nothing more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. (emphasis supplied).
8. The University of Swat, as is mentioned in its preamble has been established under Regulations 11 of 2010. This Regulation was issued by the governor with the approval of the president in terms of sub-Article (4) of Article 247. The said Regulation, however, has never been challenged by the provincial government that either the governor has no jurisdiction to issue this Regulation or the Regulation is ultra vires of the Constitution. Hence the respondents cannot bypass the constitutional bar which is explicit and absolute.
9. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry initiated by the respondents was a person specific and the same has been dropped as the vice chancellor of the university has completed his tenure, has no legal basis as the inquiry was initiated against the vice chancellor of the petitioner university which is located in Provincially Administered Tribal Area where the Anti- corruption Act 1947 has not yet been extended as is required under sub-Article 4 of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan, therefore, any interference by the respondents in the said areas in absence of explicit orders would be unconstitutional.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition and the connected writ petition are allowed.