IJAZ ANW AR, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islam ic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:- "A. It is, therefore, very humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that on the acceptance of this petition, the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to lodge FIR against the respondents No.4 to 8 under the relevant provisions of law for the sake of justice and good governance because the respondents No.4 to 8 have committed a cognizable and non-bailable offence, by setting aside the order dated 16.06.2021 of respondent No.9.
B. It is further humbly prayed that the concerned quarters may please be directed to initiate the departmental/disciplinary inquires against the respondents No.1 to 8 and they may please be dismissed from services to become a lesson for the likeminded people in future for the ends of justice and good governance.
C. Any other relief may also be grant ed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, which deems fit by this Hon'ble Court while looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, albeit not specifically attacked herein, in the instant petition".
2. As per the averments of the petition, petitioner , being employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL), is seeking issuance of direction of this Court to the respondents No.1 to 3 for registration of FIR against the respondents No.4 to 8 who have laid down illegal gas connections, installed illegal meter and also demanding money as bribe from the locals. His applic ation under Section 22-A Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Justice of Peace, Peshawar vide order dated 16.06.2021. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Comments were called from respondents No.7 and 8 who furnished the same, wherein, they opposed the issuance of desired writ asked for by the petitioner .
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that vide the impugned order dated 16.06.2021, application of the petitioner filed under Section 22-A Cr.P.C for issuance of direction for registration of FIR against the respondents No.5 to 8 was dismissed on the ground that SNGPL company has not authorized the petitioner to lodge FIR against the SNGPL officials/of ficers.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and we are in agreem ent to his view that Section 462- C PPC is a cognizable offence; however , in the instant case, the issue in hand does not merely pertains to the competency of petitioner to lodge an FIR or cognizability of offence, rather petitioner , being an employee of SNGPL, seems to be settling his personal disputes through an abuse of process of law. The record, placed on file by both the parties, suggests that petitioner , being a Driver/Supervisor in the SNGPL company , was also proceeded departmentally and has his litigation pending before the NIRC and recently , he has also been terminated from service vide order dated 27.12.2021. The record further transpires that petitioner has earlier filed a civil suit against the SNGPL company , claiming himself to be shareholder on the basis of SNGPL Employees Empowerment Trust, however , it was dismissed on 08.02.2021 , whereafter , his revision petition also failed. The record further transpires that prior to the instant matter , petitioner has also lodged an FIR No.855 dated 14.12.2020 under Section 462-C PPC against certain persons despite the fact that neither it was his duty nor he was ever authorized to do so; that's why, the General Manager of SNGPL was constrained to write a letter dated 15.12.2020 to the CCPO and shows his concerns that "FIRs locked under Section 462-C PPC by unauthorized persons as a blackmailing/ harassment tool. This practice is not only degrading the prestige of SNGPL and Law enforcing agencies but is also putting an extra burden on the legal system" and it was also clarified that only a designated Executive Engineer (T ask Force) was authorized to lodge FIRs in such matters.
7. We have noted in numerous cases that the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C is misused; besides, frivolous litigation in the Courts have become unstoppable, unnecessarily burdening the Courts and wasting their precious public time. It is high time for the Courts to take effective measures to curb the uncalled for and frivolous litigation and imposition of suitable cost could be one of the deterrent modes to eliminate the concocted litigation.
8. The Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, while expressing its concern over filing of frivolous litigation by suppressing and concealing facts, summarized the principles of law enunciated on the subject as follows:- "(i) It is recognized as a duty of the Court to take effective measures against obstinate litigants who resort to frivolous or fraudulent litigation.
(ii) Though Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CP.C.") is applicable to writ jurisdiction ("Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner , PLD 1970 SC 1), yet being extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court has ample power to do justice and to prevent misuse or abuse of its process.
(iii) Section 35-A of C.P.C., in no way limits the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court and in appropriate cases can impose costs, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199, "Notwithstanding the parameters" of the said provision. Thus costs in excess of the amount prescribed under Section 35-A, can be imposed
(iv) Petitioners wasting public time and exchequer should be burdened with heavy costs.
(v) Courts can award heavy costs for harassing others or dragging them in frivolous litigation.
(vi) High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can award, in appropriate case, costs to compensate a party made to suf fer unnecessarily through frivolous litigation.
(vii) Imposition of suitable costs is one of the mode to deter or eliminate frivolous litigation.
(viii) In appropriate cases proceedings under the law of contempt can be initiated against the litigant and the person who drafted the petition".
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan when found that "petition was completely ill-founded, ill-advised and incompetent, dismissed the same with a heavy cost".
10. In the instant case, since the petition er has history of differences/animosities with the respondents; besides, having no authority from the responden t-Company to initiate legal proceedings against the alleged violators in order to discourage the tendency of frivolous litigation and wasting precious time of this Court, this case also deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.1 2 3
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with identical matters, held that "court must, protect the Society from the so-called 'protectors' and, hence, the application being devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public protection was dismissed holding that the application certainly creates bottlenecks in Courts and is an abuse of the process of Supreme Court. Therefore, in their own and public interest, people should avoid filing of frivolous/vexatious petitions before this Courts, as filing of a vexatious and frivolous petitions may entail liability to pay special costs besides possibility of prosecution, for abuse of the process of the Court',.
12. The above view was further followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in another identical case.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while seized of a similar case pertaining to public interest litigation, observed as under:- "Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injur y and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations.
Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity .
The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs".
14. In view of the above and the fact that petitioner has resorted to uncalled for litigation and abused the process of law, thus, in order to curb such frivolous litigation; this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). The Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar is directed to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner and to deposit it in the public ex-chequer . Compliance report be submitted to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for perusal of the Hon'ble Judges in Chambers. S.M. Sohail Vs. Mst. Sitara Kabir-ud-Din and others ( PLD 2009 SC 397 ) Azhar Iqbal and others Vs. Government of Pakistan and others ( PLD 2015 Islamabad 140 ) Mst. Najma Vs. Mst. Farha Fehan ( 2007 SCMR 966 ) Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangtarsh Samitit Vs. State of U.P . (AIR 1990 SC 2060) AIR 1984 SC 802 Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of W est Bangal (AIR 2004 SC 280)