MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs:
(a) That this Honorable court may be pleased to issue the directions to the respondent No.2 to constitute a team being headed by any District and Sessions Judge and to make thorough inquiry by calling the relevant record from the University of Sindh about passing of MBA examinations by respondent No.11 and also of Education Department (concerned schools) and to take the action in accordance with the law .
(b) That this Honourable Court may issue the directions to the University of Sindh that if MBA degree of the respondent No.11 is proved to be illegal and deceitfully obtained, then cancel such degree and the State Life Insurance in such a way , terminate the employment of respondent No.1 1 in accordance with the law .
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the petitioner in the memo of petition, are that he is a respectable and law abiding citizen at the country and has been enjoying good reputation, summit name and graceful personality in the locality . He further stated that there is a land bearing khet No.3 admeasuring 1-0 acre in Deh Kohistan 7/1, Tapo Jhimpir , Taluka and District Thatta, which is in possession of the petitioner . According to him, the said land originally belonged to his father and after his demise, the petitioner had inherited the same and thereafter , he had sold it to his wife Mst. Hameeda Nigar for total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- through a registered sale deed No.368 dated 3.2.2002 and on the basis of such registered sale deed, this land was mutated in the name of said Mst.
Hameeda Nigar in the record of rights.
3. It is further asserted in the memo. of petition that respondent No.11 namely Mohammad Hassan, who everywhere introduces himself to be an officer of 19 grade in State Life Insurance and calls himself to be MBA educated on an incarnate status, is in habit of making the false complaints against the petitioner and his sons and he and his other relatives have created unnecessary dispute and tumults with the petitioner in respect of abovesaid land, thus Mst. Hameeda Nigar , since deceased, wife of the petitioner had filed a civil suit being FC Suit No.64 of 2015 titled "Mst. Hameeda Nigar v. Province of Sindh and others" against respondent No.11 and his relatives, which is pending in the court of learned Senior Judge Thatta, in which the respondent No.11 and his other brothers are the defendants and they filed written statement in the said suit stating therein that the petitioner had occupied a government building of Veterinary Hospital belonging to Livestock/Animal Husbandry Department although the petitioner had not occupied any alleged government building. He further averred that although respondent No.11 and his other brothers/relatives have no grumbles at all but since they are cantankerous persons, therefore they are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner because they have kept iniquity eyes over the above land belonging to petitioner's family . According to the petitioner , respondent No.11 and his other relatives by their ulterior motives and mala fide intentions are taking defamatory steps to denigrate the petitioner and his family members in the locality .
Not only so, but they also committed the Cybercrimes by posting the dirty, defamatory , false and infuriating matters against the petitioner and his family members. Despite that the petitioner adopted legal course by exercising his legal rights of suing the relief against the respondent No.11 and his other relatives under the defamation laws. He further stated that after having been highly perturbed at the hands of respondent No.11 and his relatives, the petitioner filed Cr, Misc. Application No.32 of 2019 titled "Pir Bux Khoso v. Muhammad Hassan and others " in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, seeking protection of against harassment created by respondent No.11 and his relatives. The said case was assigned to learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Thatta. Respondent No.11 and his relatives filed comments in the said case wherein they leveled false allegations against the petitioner that he had encroached upon the bungalow of Veterinary Department. In this regard, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Thatta called report from the Livestock Department, who vide their report dated 25.1.2019 stated in clear terms that there is no encroachment on building of Livestock dispensary Jhimpir and dispensary is functioning properly , therefore learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Thatta passed order in the said case on 28.1.2019 thereby directing the SHO Police Station Jhimpir to provide necessary protection to the petitioner .
4. The Petitioner further asserted that as per his knowledge, respondent No.11 is introducing himself to be MBA graduate and an officer of 19 grade. Petitioner further stated that respondent No.11 was initially appointed as Primary Teacher in Education Department and remained posted in the schools including those mentioned as respondents Nos.8 to 10, where he served, made attendance there and also drew monthly salaries from government treasury but surprisingly he also studied as a regular student at University of Sindh concomitantly and passed the MBA examinations under seat No.20 in the year 1989 and he allegedly obtained 1362 marks out of 2000 marks. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.11 while posted as Head Master , Government Primary School Wali Muhammad Shoro, was absenting himself for several days and then he was making himself present on duty by marking signatures on the attendance register , therefore on 17.1.1991 and 7.2.1991, concerned Supervisor Primary Education had paid the surprise visits at such school and marked visiting notes on the visitors book, which are self-explanatory . According to the petitioner , respondent No.11 used to be present at his duty in above schools at morning hours and simultaneously he also used to attend morning classes during same period, which could not be possible, thus it is apparent that he had passed MBA examination by untrustworthy and illegal means by showing his fake presence either at school duty or attending the classes of MBA examinations.
5. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.11 also committed another cheating with the government. His wife Mst. Razia Sultana is a government servant in Health Department and simultaneously she also obtained the amount of Zakat from Zakat and Ushr Department vide cheque No.395975 dated 26.6.2003 issued by the Chairman Local Zakat and Ushr Committee Kohistan, Jhimpir for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in her NBP account No.1213-1 although she was not deserving to receive zakat because on one side she herself is government servant and on other hand, she is wife of respondent No.11, who introduces himself to be 19 grade officer. She also received sewing machine worth value of Rs.10,000/- from the zakat fund. He further averred that respondent No.11 after passing MBA examination deceitfully obtained employment in State Life Insurance Department and now he is claiming himself to be MBA graduate and officer of 19 Grade in State Life Insurance Department, therefore this department should also conduct inquiry against him. According to the petitioner , his grievance in this petition is to hold the inquiry against respondent No.11 by constituting a team to probe into against the respondent No.11 on such facts whether he passed the MBA examination deceitfully and then obtained service in State Life Insurance Department deviously .
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on the record.
7. From the perusal of the contents of the memo of petition, it seems that, in fact, the basic reason for filing instant constitutional petition by the petitioner seems to be a dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.11 Mohammad Hassan and his relatives on the other side, over a piece of land bearing khet No.3 admeasuring 1-0 acre in Deh Kohistan 7/1, Tapo Jhim pir, Taluka and District Thatta presently possessed by the petitioner , as mentioned in paras 2 to 6 of the memo of petition. In this respect, Suit No.64 of 2015 is already pending between the parties. Besides, the petitioner has also filed Cr. Misc. Application No.32 of 2019 against respondent No.11 and his relatives in the Court of Sessions Judge, Thatta. It seems that in order to press urize respondent No.11 and his relatives, the petitioner has also mentione d other facts; for instance, that respondent was serving in a school and simultaneously he was attending MBA classes that concerned Supervisor Primary Education on his surprise visits made certain visiting notes against respondent No.11; that the wife of respondent No.11 obtained amount from Zakat Fund although she did not deserve for the same etc.
8. Apparently , the petitioner is making efforts to utilize the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of obtaining his personal interest and gains. As per his own admissions, he has already resorted civil as well as criminal remedies by filing FC Suit No.64 of 2015 which is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Thatta, so also Criminal Misc. Application No.32 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta. In such a situation, filing of instant constitutional petition on the basis of same facts and grounds is nothing but to drag the concerned respondents into frivolous and vexatious litigations and also to waste precious time of this Court
9. Needless to emphasize, that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution is extra ordinary in nature which is aimed at proper dispensation of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of law. Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction which is meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be allowed to be invoked for extending protection to ill-gotten gains.
10. Another worth-mentioning factor is that from the perusal of the contents of the memo of the petition it is crystal clear that disputed facts are involved in the case which cannot be determined without undertaking the exercise of recording of evidence of all concerned which cannot be done in the instant petition in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
In this connection reference may be made to the case of Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner , Faisalabad and others reported in 2011 SCMR 279 wherein Honourable Supreme Court while relying upon its various previous decisions on this legal point, held as under: "Let we mention at the out-set that there are certain controversial questions which cannot be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction as a thorough probe and investigation would be needed to set the controversy at naught specially when a categoric allegation of fraud and forgery has been leveled by the Additional Advocate General. It is well settled by now that the superior courts should not involve themselves into investigations of disputed question of fact which necessitate taking of evidence. This can more appropriately be done in the ordinary civil procedure for litigation by a suit. This extra ordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily , for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts. Controverted questions of fact, adjudication on' which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties, can be determined only by courts having plenary jurisdiction in matter and on such ground constitutional petition was incompetent."
11. It may be observed with great concern that the tendency of invoking extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of frivolous and vexatious litigations is increasingly alarmingly which needs to be curbed in order to save precious time of this Cour t which could be utilized in deciding the matters based on sincere and genuine foundations. The Superior Courts in certain cases involving such frivolous and vexatious litigations have imposed costs against the litigants initiating such frivolous litigations. In the case reported as Azhar Iqbal v.
Government of Pakistan (PLD 2015 Islamabad 140) it was held that duty of the Court is to take effective measures against obstinate litigants who resort to frivolous or fraudulent litigation. It was further held that the petitioner in a Constitutional Petition wasting precious time of the Court should be burdened with heavy costs and the Court can award heavy costs for harassing others or dragging them in frivolous litigation. It was further held that High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution can award, in appropriate cases, costs to compensate a party made to suffer unnecessarily through frivolous litigation. It was further held that proceedings under law of contempt can also be initiated against litigant and who drafted such petition.
12. For the foregoing, reasons, by a short order passed on, 16.05.2019, instant constitutional petition was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Above are the reasons for the said short order .