Briefly put, the petitioner filed Writ Petition, bearing Diary No.12417/2017, which was fixed as Objection Case before my learned brother , Shahid Bilal Hassan, J. who sustained the Office Objection vide order dated 03.02.2017. Aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2017 the petitioner has filed instant petition. The Office has raised objection qua its maintainability .
2. The petitioner submits that in view of the latest judgment of the apex Court of the country in the case of Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar , Islamabad High Court and others (PLD 2016 SC 961) an administrative order passed by any Member of the Bench is challengeable in Constitutional jurisdiction thus the objection raised by the Office is not sustainable. Adds that instant petition has arisen out of infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner , thus, the same is maintainable. Further adds that elections for the Lahore High Court Bar Association are going to be held on 25.02.2017 (tomorrow), thus, there is urgency in the matter. To fortify his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Civil Aviation Authority Islamabad and others v. Union of Civil Aviation Employees and another (PLD 1997 SC 781), Dr. Malik Hafeez ur Rehman and 18 others v.
Pakistan Medical Association, Jhelum through President and 5 others (2013 MLD 651), Union of Civil Aviation Employees, Lahore and another v. Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad (PLD 1993 Lahore 306) and order, dated 29.10.2014, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18129 of 2014, titled Siraj Ahmad, Advocate High Court v. Lahore High Court Boar Association etc.
3. After hearing the petitioner and going through the objection raised by the Office I have noted that by virtue of present petition the petitioner has challenged order, dated 03.02.2017, passed by another learned Single Bench of this Court. According to the law laid down by the apex Country in the case of Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 103) an order passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court cannot be assailed before any other Single Bench. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: - "5. We tried to impress upon them that the above facts would not attract. Article 184(3) of the Constitution if otherwise the aforesaid petitions are not sustainable in view of well-settled proposition of law, firstly, that a Bench of this Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over an order or a judgment of another Bench of this Court and, secondly, Article 184(3) confers jurisdiction on this Court of the nature contained in Article 199 of the Constitution, clause (5) of which excludes inter alia the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In other words, no writ can be issued by a High Court or the Supreme Court against itself or against each other or its Judges in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, subject to two exceptions, namely, (i) where a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge acts as persona designata or as a Tribunal or (ii) where a quo warranto is prayed for and a case is made out." (emphasis provided).
4. Erstwhile Rule 9(ii) of Part A of Chapter I of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Volume V provided as follows:- "The order of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) returning the memorandum of any suit, appeal, petition or application may be challenged before the Chief Justice or Judge nominated by the Chief Justice on administrative side whose decision shall be final and shall not be assailed in any other proceeding before the High Court".
Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, if the petitioner was aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, sustaining the Office Objection, he could have resort to appropriate proceedings instead of filing a Constitutional petition before this Court.
5. Now coming to the case-law cited by the petitioner, I am of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case inasmuch as in the case of Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry and others (Supra) the apex Court of the country has held that the administrative orders passed by the Chief Justice and Judges of any High Court are not immune from the Constitutional jurisdiction of the apex Court of the country vested under Article 184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 whereas in the instant petition the petitioner has challenged an order passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court, thus, the said case is polls apart from the preposition involved in this case. So far as the cases of Civil Aviation Authority Islamabad and others, Dr. Malik Hafeez ur Rehman and Union of Civil Aviation Employees, Lahore and another (Supra) are concerned, suffice it to note that in the said cases the controversy mainly revolved around the right of the employees to form a trade union whereas in the instant petition the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge sustaining the objection raised by the Office. Likewise order , dated 29.10.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.
No.18129 of 2014 is of no help to the petitioner as the same did not deal with any objection raised by the Of fice.
6. As a necessary corollary to the discussion made in the fore-going paragraphs I have no doubt to hold that an order passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court cannot be assailed before any other Single Bench of this Court. Consequently , Office Objection being well-based is sustained .