MUHAMMAD GUL., J.-Respondent No. 1, herein is a statutory corpo--ration established originally under Ordinance XIV of 1948 and reconstituted under Ordinance 11 of 1962, for the Rehabilitation of incoming refugees particularly artisans. For that purpose respondent No. 1 acquired certain land known as Bholari Camp in Dadu district on which a large number of refugee families were settled and where they established small industries. Among other things, respondent No. 1 had to arrange for the supply of electricity and water to the residents of the Camp at certain rates settled by mutual arrange--ment. It appears that on 30th August 1968, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, to discuss mainly the problems arising out of large sums of money outstanding against respondent No. 1 on account of electricity and water charges which had accumulated by reason of non-payment of arrears by the residents of the Camp. The meeting was attended among others by four representatives of the refugees including the petitioner No. 1 herein. Among the decisions taken in this meeting were to increase the charges for electricity and water and also to devise means for the recovery of mounting arrears. Copies of the minutes were sent to the various persons including petitioner No. 1, who was one of the representatives of the residents. After about two months of the circulation of its minutes, the two petitioners filed Suit No. 64 of 1969 in the Court of the District Judge, Dadu, impleading the Corporation and Deputy Commis--sioner, Dadu as the two defendants. The relief claimed was that the proceed--ings of the meeting held on the 30th August 1969 and the decision taken thereon were illegal. By way of consequential relief a permanent injunction was also claimed restraining the respondents from implementing the decisions taken at the meeting. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. Was also made which was dismissed on the short ground that the two plaintiffs who had sued as representatives of residents of Bolari Camp bad not complied with the provisions of Order I rule 8, C. P. C. This omission was rectified and a fresh application made under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P C. The learned trial Judge thought that the two plaintiffs had established prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction and ordered accordingly, restraining the respondents from charging water and electricity charges at enhanced rates.
2. On appeal by the respondent No. 1, the order of the learned District Judge was reversed by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan. The learned Chief Justice was mainly influenced by the fact that the residents of the Camp had failed to pay the water and electricity charges even at the rates originally agreed and that the arrears were progressively mounting. The learned Chief Justice also took notice of the fact that the residents were represented among others by petitioner No. 1, who did not take any objection to the decisions taken at the meeting until after about two months. Having carefully considered the circumstances the learned Chief Justice opined that the learned District Judge was not justified in granting the injunction and, therefore, allowed the appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for special leave against the appellate order of the learned Chief Justice argued that the Deputy Commissioner Dadu had no authority under the law to convene the meeting and, therefore, the entire proceedings and the decisions arrived at the meeting were ultra vires and not binding upon the residents of the Camp. It was stressed that the business of the respondent No. 1 is conducted by a Board of Directors nominated by the Federal Government and that the Deputy Commissioner of the District is not among them and, therefore, any decision taken at a meeting presided over by him is wholly devoid of legal validity and unenforcible. As pointed out already, the original rates were fixed by mutual arrangement between the parties and, therefore, the meeting held on the 30th August 1969 was convened only to find ways and means to enable respondent No. 1 to clear all arrears due to the WAPDA and other authorities by the recovery of arrears from the residents. This arrangement was essentially in the nature of new arrangements at a representative meeting of all concerned.
4. Apart from that it is impossible to suggest that the learned Chief Justice unjustly exercised the discretion in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction to refuse the interlocutory injunction applied for by the petitioners. The case is germane to the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction and does not raise any law point of general importance. Nor, does it finally decide any dispute between the parties. If the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, the plaintiff's and other residents will be entitled to refund.
The petition is dismissed.