ABDUL SHAKOOR, J. Akbar Khan, petitioner herein, through the instant constitutional petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, is seeking an order requiring the respondent No.1 to show under what authority of law he claims to hold the office of Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the M/s. Pak-Qatar Takaful Limited.
2. Petitioner , in this petition, in essence is claiming that respondent No.1 being intermediate was having no right to be appointed as Managing Director/CEO of respondent No.2 under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 thus putting the hard earned money of public at risk which they have deposited and depositing under Insurance Policies with respondent No.2 as risk coverage of their lives and properties. Petitioner with the view to save the money of public from being vested on account of the decisions of ineligible person (respondent No.1), lodged a complaint with respondent No.3 for his removal but of no avail, hence, this petition.
3. This Court, in view of the averments of the petition, called comments from respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 which they furnished separately . In their comm ents, they have denied the allegations of petitioner being baseless and having no legs to stand upon and further stated that the instant petition is aimed at to settle personal score with respondent No.1 on account of strained relations between them over the marriage dispute of their son and daughter . It was also maintained that the instant petition is not maintainable since respondent No.1 is neither holding a Public Office as visualized in terms of sub-clause (ii)(b) of clause 1 of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 nor he being the Director of respondent No.2, based at Karachi, is working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was further added that petitioner before instituting the instant petition before this Court, has lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2 on account of working of respondent No.1 as Managing Director before the respondent No.3, the proper and competent forum for the purpose; and he without waiting the decision of respondent No.3 has invok ed the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which otherwise, is not maintainable.
4. We have considered the submissions of petitioner and as well the learned counsel of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and carefully gone through the record available on case file.
5. Before proceeding further to dilate upon the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to first resolve the issue of maintainability of the instant petition which respondents have agitated in their comments with full vigor and as well vehemently urged by their counsel during the course of arguments. Indeed, petitioner is holding the office of Director of respondent No.2 (Public Limited Company) which shares are open to everyone. Now question arises whether a Director of a Company which is neither owned or controlled by the Federal Government of Pakistan, Provincial Government or Local Government, will be considered a Holder of Public Office as envisioned in sub- clause (ii)(b) of clause 1 of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Though, Public Office has not been defined under Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan, but generally it refers to any person working in the Public Sector , whether in Parliamentary , Government or Municipal Institutions. An elected official or person appointed to work in public administration can be a Public Office Holder . We have examined the various law of land but not come across with the precise definition of Public Office as visualized in sub-clause (ii)(b) of clause 1 of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. However , there is a definition of Pubic Office in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, therefore, we consider it worthwhile to reproduce the same as under for appreciating the true import of Public Of fice vis-a-vis the of fice of petitioner .
"Section 5(m): "Holder of public of fice" means a person who-
(i) has been President of Pakistan or the Governor of a Province.
(ii) is, or has been the Prime Minister , Chairman Senate, Speaker of the National Assembly , Deputy Speaker National Assembly , Federal Minister , Minister of State, Attorney General and other Law Officer appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970 (VII of 1970), Advisor to the Prime Minister , Special Assistant to the Prime Minister , Feder al Parliamentary Secretary , Member of Parliament, Auditor General, Political Secretary , Consultant to the Prime Minister and holds or has held a post or office with the rank or status of a Federal Minister or Minister of State;
(iii) is, or has been, the Chief Minister , Speaker Provincial Assembly , Deputy Speaker Provincial Assembly , Provincial Minister , Advisor to the Chief Minister , Special Assistant to the Chief Minister , Provincial Parliamentary Secretary , Member of the Provincial Assembly , Advocate General including Additional Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General, Political Secretary , Consultant to the Chief Minister and who holds or has held a post or of fice with the rank or status of a Provincial Minister;
(iv) is holding, or has held, an office or post in the service of Pakistan, or any service in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or of a Province, or of a local council constituted under any Federal or Provincial law relating to the constitut ion of local councils [co-operative societies] or in the management of corporations, banks, financial institutions, firms, concerns, undertakings or any other institution or organization established, controlled or administered by or under the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, other than a person who is a member of any of the armed force s of Pakistan, except a person who is, or has been a member of the said forces and is holding, or has held, a post or office in any public corporation, bank, financial institution, undertaking or other organizatio n established, controlled or administered by or under the Federal Government or a Provincial Government [or notwithstanding anything contained in the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), or any other law for the time being in force, a person who is a civilian employee of the Armed Forces of Pakistan;]
(v) has been, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of a zila council, a municipal committee, a municipal corporation or a metropolitan corporation constituted under any Federal or Provincial law relating to local councils; and "Explanation" For the purpose of this sub-clause the expressions "Chairman" and "Vice Chairman" shall include "Mayor" and "Deputy Mayor" as the case may be, and the respective councilors therein.
(va) is or has been a District Nazim or Naib Nazim, Tehsil Nazim or Naib Nazim or Union Nazim or Naib Nazim;
(vi) has served in and retired or resigned from or has been discharged or dismissed from the Armed Forces of Pakistan.
6. After analyzing the position of respondent No.1 as Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director of respondent No.2 which has got nothing to do with the Federal Government, Provincial Government and Local Government, on the touchstone of aforesaid definition of Public Office which is generally referred to and contained in National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, we are of the considered view that respondent No.1, by no event, can be considered as Holder of Public Office as visualized in sub-clause (ii)(b) of clause 1 of Article 199 of the Constitution of-Pakistan. Thus, the instant petition is not maintainable.
7. Apart from the above, we, while going through the comments filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3, have observed that respondent No.3 on the complaint of present petitioner has carried out an on-site inspection of the respondent No.2 through its three officials under the law applicable to the Insurance Companies registered/ incorporated with it. The of ficials so carried out inspection on-site of the respondent No.2 in their findings have held that:- "The Managing Director (respondent No.1) of respondent No.2 (M/s. Pak-Qatar Takaful Limited) he is intermediate, he is an Executive Director and Partner in Eurotec Projects Development, Managing Director of Pak-Qatr Family Takaful Limited and Pak-Qatar General Takaful Limited Karachi and Director in Pak- Qatar Investment (Private) Limited Pakistan. In addition, he appears to be involved actively in other ventures as copies of his emails to the Company bear stamps of these projects. Whereas, complex nature of the takaful business calls forth a dedicated CEO having single-minded concern and undivided attention with all the mandatory powers. Nevertheless, an insight look into the case of this Company , take us to the conclusion that it is not being run by the approved CEO".
8. Upon the aforesaid findings of officials of SECP (Commission), proceedings were initiated against (1) M/s. Pak- Qatar General Takaful Limited (the "Company"), its Chief Executive and Directors and (2) M/s. Pak-Qatar Family Takaful Limited (the "Company") its Chief Executive and Directors, for alleged contravention of Regulations 2(1) and 2(2) of the Insurance Companies (Sound and Prudent Management) Regulat ions, 2012 (the "regulations") by Tahir Mehmood, Commissioner (Insurance) of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.
9. The worthy Commissioner (Insurance), after hearings the officials of the aforesaid companies in exercise of power conferred under Sections 65, 56 and 158 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 read with SRO 750(1)/2017 dated 02.08.2017 vide his orders dated March, 16, 2018 and March, 21 2018 instead of taking any punitive action against the aforesaid companies and its officials provided under the provision of said Ordinance and SRO opted to take a lenient view and accordingly issued them a stern warning with the note that in case of similar non-compliance in future, a strong action will be taken. The same orders were issued without prejudice to any other action that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Commission) may initiate again st the aforesaid companies and its management (including the CEO of the company) in accordance with law on matters subsequently investigated or otherwise, brought to the knowledge of the Commission. Thus, the forum, under the law, could take action against the respondent No.2 has already initiated proceedings against it on the basis of complaint of petitioner which he alleged against the responden ts Nos.1 and 2 in the instant writ petition and resultantly , matter was disposed of vide aforesaid orders of the Commissioner (Insurance). Thus, the insta nt petition, in view of the above orders of the Commissioner (Insurance), is also not maintainable.
10. In the light of foregoing discussion, this writ petition, being not maintainable, is dismissed.