' The order of remand dated 14th of April, 1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, on appeal filed by respondents Nos,1 and 2, has been assailed by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition.
2. The first contention raised by Mr. M. Nasim Kashmiri, Advocate, is that as respondents Nos,1 and 2 were not parties to the proceedings before this Court in the earlier round of litigation or for that matter before the Director of Education, they had no right to file any appeal. However, a reference to section 10 of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion & Regulation) Ordinance, 1984 would show that the right to file an appeal is not confined to parties but to any person aggrieved. It is thus not necessary that a person should be a party in the lower forum before he invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. This interpretation fmds support from the Supreme Court judgment in the case of H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir All Industries Ltd., Karachi and another PLD 1969 SC 65. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mistri Allah Din v. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 52 has been pleased to observe that where the legislature intended to confer restricted right of appeal it has used the expression any party rather than any person.
3. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification for the Deputy Commissioner to have set aside the order of the Director and remanded the case. It is, however, to be seen that the Deputy Commissioner has observed that there were two contestants and it would be fair and in the interest of justice that respondents Nos,l and 2 could also filed an application for registration of the school so that the respective claims of the parties could be evaluated. In order to secure interest of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has been careful enough to further direct that due regard should be given to the previous claim of the parties on the school as well as the conduct of respondent No,1 as a custodian of the school during the past should be kept in consideration. That being so, there appears to be no justification for interference with the order of the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate.
' This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.