MUSARRA T HILALI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Islamic Repu blic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner , Reverend Jimmy Mathews, has prayed that:- a. Direct the respondent No. 1 to show under what authority he claims to hold the office as Bishop of Dioceses of Peshawar appointed by the Church of Pakistan, as the constitution of the Church of Pakistan does not warrant his holding office, b. Direct the respondent No.1 on failure to show the requisite authority within which he is holding office of Bishop of Dioceses of Peshawar , in particular his election by the Peshaw ar Diocesan Council, he be directed to vacate the office of Bishop, as well as of his consequent Chairmanship of respondent No.2. c. Direct the respondent No.1 upon failure to demonstrate the above mentioned, to vacate the premises of the St. John's Cathedral Church of Peshawar as well as Edwards College Peshawar .
2. The petitioner claiming himself to be the Commissary Bishop of Northern Diocese Mardan is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.1 ( Bishop peter S. Humphreys) as Bishop of Diocese of Peshawar as a result of which he is also the ex-of ficio Chairman of the Board of Governors of Edwards College Peshawar , is, according to him, neither he being a layman was eligible to be appointed against the office of Bishop nor his appointment has been made in the prescribed manner as provided by the Constitution of Church of Pakistan.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 submitted his comments wherein the desired writ was opposed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, at the very outset, raised objection as to maintainability of the instant petition by submitting that Church of Pakistan being an autonomous body , therefore, this court is not competent to issue a writ to an organization not controlled by the Government of Pakistan. According to him, writ of quo-warranto can only be issued against a person holding a 'public office' whereas, neither respondent No.1 is holding a public office nor the petitioner falls within the definition of "any person" which is necess ary for issuance of a writ of like nature, while, on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Church is statutory body regulated by the Constitution of the Church of Pakistan. He further submitted that respondent No.1 by virtue of post of Bishop also enjoying ex-of ficio Chairmanship of the Board of Governors of Edwards College Peshawar as envisaged in the Constitution of College, which is a public institution by all legal means and that for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, it is not necessary that a person must be aggrieved as there is no prohibition under Article 199 of the constitution, therefore, any person irrespective of the fact whether he is an aggrieved person or otherwise can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction by way of writ of quo warranto against usurpation of a public office by a person without having any lawful authority .
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Under Sub-Clause (1)(b)(ii) of the Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, this court may on the application of any person, make an order requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office. Accord ing to the above Article of the Constitution, a person against whom issuance of a writ of quo warranto is sought must- hold a public office. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that the post of Bishop falls within the definition of public office, therefore, case of respondent No.1 also come A within the ambit of Sub-Clause (1)(b)(ii) of the Article 199 of the Constitution. The word 'public office' has not been defined in the Constitution, however , the august Supreme Court in the case titled "Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited, Tokht Bhai and 10 others"
(PLD 1975 SC 244) has observed that a public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign function of the government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It is a trust conferred by a public authority for a public purpose.
7. Unquestionably , the appointment of Bishop is made under Chapter IX of the Constitution of the Church of Pakistan whereas under Article 4 of Chapter XVI "the Autonomy of the Church of Pakistan" the Church of Pakistan shall be an autonomous Church and free from any control. The relevant Article, for advantageous, is reproduced herein below:-- "The Church of Pakistan shall be an autonomous Church and free from any control, legal or otherwise, of any church or society external to itself.
According to the above Article, the Church is an autonomous entity and Government of Pakistan has nothing to do with the administration and control of the Churches in Pakistan. It has now been well settled that this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules, therefore, the outset, it is required to be determined as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, but in the case in hand, certainly , the matter pertains to the Church, which is an independent entity not falling B within the meaning of a person or entity performing the function of Federation, Province or Legal Authority , rather regulated by their own independent rules and law as provided by the 'The Constitution of the Church of Pakistan', therefore, this court cannot issue the desired writ to any private person, legal entity , authority , body corporate, who is not performing functions in connection with the af fairs of Federation, a province or the local authority .
8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 by virtue of post of Bishop also enjoying ex-of ficio chairmanship of the Board of Governors of Edwards College Peshawar as envisaged in the Constitution of College which is a public institution by all legal means has also no force as the petitioner in indirect way has challenged the post of Bishop and, as stated earlier , this court cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the minorities, particularly , as to running of the Church, regulated by the Constitution of the Church of Pakistan, therefore on this score too, issuance of a writ of like nature is also not maintainable.
9. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed.