1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J. ---This order will dispose of the above two petitions as the orders of the High Court, which are impugned therein are in identical terms.
2. ' The story narrated by the petitioners is entirely airy fairy.
3. The impugned orders of the departmental authorities have not been filed. In response to this objection, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no orders as no action has ever been taken on the applications of the petitioners and that it is this inaction which is the basis of his complaint. But, unfortunately, he has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that he had indeed submitted any application on which some action had to be taken. His averment that he had submitted the applications sometimes in 1975/1976 which have remained undisposed of until today becomes highly doubtful when he found that he complained of this inaction only in 1989. Some 13/14 years after the submission of the application and that too to the Prime Minister who was not the statutory authority directly empowered to deal with the matter.
4. ' These petitions are frivolous and misconceived.