Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J.--The titled appeals are outcome of one and the same judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2020, whereby the appeals filed by the contesting parties have been dismissed, hence, the same are being decided through this single judgment.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that different Watermills (Gharats), owned by the respondents, herein, were acquired for Neelum Jehlum Hydro Electric Project. The Collector determined the compensation of the Watermills in question as Rs. 67,000/-. The owners feeling dissatisfied from the compensation amount determined by the Collector filed reference applications. The learned Reference Judge keeping in view the annual income, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 67,200 to Rs. 1,70,000 per Watermill (Gharat). The judgment of the trial Court was challenged through separate appeals before the High Court which have been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 26.08.2020.
3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that petitions for leave to appeal were filed without authorization of the Boards of Directors of the Company which is mandatory under law, therefore, these appeals are incompetent any liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. In support of this version, he also referred to a case reported as WAPDA & another v. Muhammad Iqbal and 10 others [2015 SCR 35] and unreported judgment delivered in the case titled Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Project v. Inhabitants of village Malsi Thotha (Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2020, decided on 09.11.2020).
At this juncture, a query was made to the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company in respect of the authorization for filing PLAs before this Court, he submitted that Chief Engineer/Project Director has duly been authorized by the concerned Board of Directors for contesting the cases at all the forums; however, he failed to place any document to show that Project Director was authorized to file PLA before this Court.
4. In view of the above, we deem it proper to take up the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the competency of appeals at first. Only a letter, written by Director (HR & Admin) NJHPC, whereby the learned counsel for the appellant has been engaged as counsel, is available on record Except this letter, nothing is available on record to show that from where the said Director derived powers to authorize the counsel to file PLA before this Court as no resolution passed by the Company's Board of Directors is available. In the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent delivered in the case titled Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Project v. Inhabitants of village Malsi Thotha (Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2020, decided on 09.11.2020), the appeal filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed by this Court on the same point after thoroughly considering the relevant law on this subject. This Court has held in the referred pronouncement that NJHPC is a private company and in view of the provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1, CPC, the person instituting legal proceedings on behalf of company should be authorized through a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in a meeting convened for such purpose. Whereas, in the instant case, no such resolution is available. It would be advantageous to reproduced here the relevant findings recorded in the judgment (supra) which read as under: "A letter brought on record by the appellant shows that NJHPC is a private company and Chief Engineer/Project Director of the company authorized the counsel to challenge the impugned judgment of the High Court before this Court. In view of the provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1, CPC, the person instituting legal proceedings on behalf of company should be authorized through a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in a meeting convened for such purpose. The superior Courts in a number of pronouncements have held that legal proceedings on behalf of company by a person are not competent unless he is so authorized by a resolution passed by the Company's Board of Directors. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly referred to and relied upon the case law reported as Muhammad Imran Barni v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Communication and Information Islamabad and 4 others 12001 YLR 2666], M/s. Standard Hotels (Private) Lt. v. M/s. Rio Centre and others [1994 CLC 2413], Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented by 6 heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. Lahore [PLD 1971 SC 550], Messrs Raze (Pvt.) Limited v. Director, Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution and others [2005 CLD 1208], Bajwa Industries (Private) Limited through Chief Executive v. Muhammad Jehangir [2014 CLC 1151].
In the other case law referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, i.e. Messrs China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) through Project Manager, Member of Association, Principal Officer and Chief Executive Neelum Jhelum Project and another v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Board of Revenue and others [2017 CLC 1519], the Vice President of China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC), authorized another person to file PLA/appeal/review etc. on behalf of CMEC. This Court after discussing the provisions of Article 95 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984, Section 2(21) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, dismissed the appeal filed by CME" while holding that after bare reading of the contents of alleged power of attorney, we failed to ascertain that from where the executant derived the powers to authorize any other person to initiate such proceedings as the Corporation failed to produce the memorandum of association or any other document authorizing the Vice President of the Corporation to appoint attorney on behalf of CMEC. The relevant paragraph of the judgment (supra) is reproduced here which reads as under: "8. In the light of the statutory provisions and the case law discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we have examined the power of attorney, which is available at Page No. 43 of the paper book, in the appeal titled M/s. China Machinery Engineering Corporation v. AJK Council Board of Revenue and others. The power of attorney shows that the same was executed at Beiging (China) through which one Li Jingkai Vice President, CMEC, authorized one Mr. Su Guanglei, to institute suits, file petitions, prefer appeals, make applications, submit written statements, file PLA/Appeal/Review Petition before Supreme Court and file any other pleadings for and on behalf of the Corporation (CMEC), before arbitrators, Courts of law, tribunals and Commissions, in all matters and manners of arbitration and litigation and further to engage and appoint and instruct counsel. From the bare reading of the contents of alleged power of attorney, we failed to ascertain that from where the executant derived the powers to authorize Mr. Su Guanglei to initiate such proceedings. Even, the representative of CMEC despite undertaking in the open Court also failed to produce the memorandum-of-association or any other document authorizing the Vice-President, CMEC, to appoint attorney on behalf of CMEC. In this state of affairs and the conduct of CMEC, legally inference and presumption can be drawn that the document is deliberately withheld being non- supportive to the version of the CMEC. The study of the power of attorney further postulates that the same has not been authenticated by any of the authorities mentioned in Article 95 of the Qanoon- e--Shahadat Order, 1984. Thus, in such situation, it can safely be concluded that the power of attorney under consideration has not been authenticated as provided under law, therefore, it cannot be said to be a valid power of attorney and the same does not confer any right upon Mr. Su Guanglei to file writ petition before the High Court or appeal before this Court."
Same like, in the case in hand, nothing is available on record to show that the Chief Engineer/Projector Director of the Company was duly authorized through a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company to exercise and perform powers to file petition for leave to appeal before this Court. During the course of arguments, in this regard a query was made to the learned counsel for the appellant but despite the fact that the respondent had raised the objection regarding the maintainability of appeal on this point in the concise statement, he failed to provide any document and satisfy the Court. In such state of affairs, we are convinced that the instant appeal has incompetently been filed, therefore, deliberation on the points involved in the matter will be a futile exercise.
The titled appeals are hit by the principle of law discussed in the referred judgment as it is evident from the record that petitions for leave to appeal were filed incompetently without valid authorization, hence, no need to discuss the other point involved in the matter as the same will be a futile exercise.
In the light of the above discussion these appeals being incompetently filed are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.