This constitutional petition assails the vires of Letter No.39- OPC-GAR dated 16-5.2016 issued by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.4 (C.P .O. Multan).
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.5 is an overseas Pakistani who is employed in Qatar . On 15.8.2015 he made Complaint No.1576 to the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commissioner (the "Commissioner") against the Petitioner alleging that he had executed an agreement with him in respect of three immoveable properties situated in various parts of District Multan and had then fraudulently sold them to third parties. The complaint was referred to the District Overseas Pakistanis Committee; Multan (the "District Committee") which considered the matter in its meeting held on 13-5-2016 and referred it to Respondent. No.3 (who is the focal person of the District Committee) for necessary action. In pursuance of the said direction Respondent No.3 issued the impugned letter/order dated 16-5-2016 to the Respondent C.P.O, Multan, asking him "to go through the contents of the complaint and redress/respond within three days positively". Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned letter under the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act, 2014 (the "Act"). He argued that the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 was of a civil nature and only the civil Court was competent to decide the same. Lastly , the entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioner were malafide and caused illegal harassment to him.
4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer vehemently opposed this petition. He submitted that the Commission was established under an Act of the Punjab Assembly with a view to help/solve the problems of the overseas Pakistanis who earn valuable foreign exchange for the country . He contended that the Commissioner and the District Committees constituted under the Act were charged with the duty to attend to the complaints of the overseas Pakistanis and to refer them to the concerned offices so that they may be expeditiously redressed. He further contended that Respondent No.3 was competent to issue the impugn ed Order and the Petitioner's objections thereto were misconceived.
5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 adopted the arguments of the learned Law Officer and submitted that the Petitioner was a fraudster who had received a huge amount of money from him in respect of three immoveable properties under a written agreement and then, instead of executing a sale deed in his favour , transferred them to third parties. He had come to the Court with unclean hands and his petition was thus liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the available record.
7. The Act was promulgated by the Punjab Assembly on 10-4-2014. It establishes the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission which is headed by the Chief Minister (Punjab), an Advisory Council and District Committees and also provides for the appointment of the Commissioner . Each body has its own functions which have been defined in detail. The purpose of the Act is to provide a swift mechanism to redress the comp laints of the overseas Pakistanis pertaining to the "Government Agency" and to promote an environment which could provide them en incentive to invest in the Punjab. The intention of the Legislature is clearly spelt out in the preamble of the Act and pervades through its entire body . It is also substanti ated by the various sections which describe the functions assigned to the aforementioned bodies constituted thereunder .
8. The term "Government Agency" is defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act to mean a department, attached department or special institution of the Government of the Punjab, a local government, or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Punjab Government or a local government. The jurisdiction of the Act is limited to the Government Agencies and the complaints that its seeks to deal with are only those which relate to maladministration and corruption in the said Agencies. It does not extend to disputes between individuals. They are to be resolved by the Courts in the ordinary course through due process of law .
9. In the instant case, the dispute is between Respondent No. 5 and the Petition er and no Government Agency within the meaning of clause (g) of Sectio n 2 of the Act is involved. Therefore, none of the bodies set up under the Act can exercise jurisdiction in the matter and the Respondent No. 3 was not competent to issue impugned letter .
Respondent No. 5 cannot by-pass the ordinary course prescribed by law .
10. The contention of the Respondents that the Impugned letter is innocuous and, does not interfere in the due process of law is without substance. It is unlikely that when a senior police officer of the rank of CPO is asked to "redress/respond within three days positively" the Petitioner would not be harassed.
11. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed . The impugned letter is declared to have been issued without lawful authority and illegal. However , Respondent No. 5 would be at liberty to pursue his remedies against the Petitioner in accordance with law .