This is a rather unusual application seeking transfer of the` venue of a Sessions trial, which was originally directed to be held at Lahore vide this Court's order, dated the 15th of May 1972, and after 26 P. Ws. Had already been examined the venue was shifted to Kasur vide Government's Notification No- 8 (3)-50 (B & C), dated the 5th of June 1972, presumably for the reasons that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who was seized of the matter, was transferred as Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur as it is inconceivable that the Government should have any special interest in the holding of murder trial at a particular place.
2. This petition for transfer was moved b5 some of th accused persons on the grounds, inter aka, that the notification resulting in the change of venue of trial subsequent to the Hig Court's order was not valid, that the parties and witnesses al belong to Lahore as also the counsel engaged by them, that they had to bear additional expenses in taking them to Kasur. It appears from the report submitted by the public prosecutor, Kasur, that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have also moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge to shift the venue of the trial back to Lahore as they apprehended foul-play at the hands of the accused. In other words, both the partiesnot only agree to the transfer of the case back to Lahore but have also been trying for it. The legal question involved in the matter however, is as to whether this Court would be competent if other--wise convinced, to change the venue of the trial in the face of the Government notification referred to earlier wherein it was speci--fically directed that the trial should be held at Kasur. -
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me in this regard to two authorities namely Lakshman v. Emperor (AIR 1931' Bom. 313) and Malik Faqir Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1958 Pesh.
44) which appear to be directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the first mentioned case, which was relied upon subsequently in the Peshawar case, the contention raised before their Lordships of the Full Bench, similar to the one now raised before me that the Notification contained an administrative order by the Govern--ment which could not be challenged in Court was overruled by their Lordships. The relevant observation reads as follows: - "The term 'administrative order' is one not known to Law British or Indian. Unlike France, with its droit administrarif (administrative law) and its Conseil d' Etat (State Council) to administer it, administrative laws and administrative Courts find no place in the Constitution of Great Britain or of India. The powers of the Local Government like the rights of othe corporations and bodies can only be derived from the law and extend no further than what the ordinary law permits. The Executive Government, Local or Imperial, is as subject to the Law, and their acts and orders are not less open to test in the Courts than those of the humblest citizen."
While strenuously opposing the transfer application learned counsel for the State, frankly admits that he has not been able to find a single authority in support of the proposition that this Court is not competent to overrule the notification. I, there--fore, allow this petition and direct that the trial may be held at Lahore the venue of the choice of both the parties where as many as 23 witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Judge. This order may be immediately communicated to him for fixing an early date in the case as the trial has already lingered on for more than six months.