' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against order dated 10-8-1992 of Lahore High Court Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,7451 of 1992 filed by first respondent herein admitted to regular hearing with direction issue of notices to appellants herein (respondents Nos.2 and 3 in that petition) with further order on C.M. No,1 of 1992 filed in the writ petition for interim relief that in the meantime no adverse order shall be passed against first respondent herein (writ petitioner) subject to notice.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the first respondent at the relevant time was Registrar of Cooperative Societies Punjab in Grade-19 B.P.S. On loan from the Federal Government. According to the memo. Of petition filed in the High Court respondent No, 1 received numerous complaints in respect of embezzlement of funds by many societies and she immediately ordered audits and enquiries into the state of affairs of the cooperative societies. It was discovered that the largest amounts of loss in excess of Rs,200 crores were being caused to the public as direct result of the affairs of Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Limited (SCCCL), which was owned by Zulfiqar Ali Awan, M.PA. Of I.J.I/Ruling Party and also a close friend and aide of Chief Minister of Punjab (impleaded as respondent No,1 in writ petition), who spent large sums of money advertising in support of Chief Minister of Punjab in his personal election campaign during the election of 1990. In that connection highlighting financial irregularities in connection with affairs of "SCCCL" she sent summaries to the Chief Minister of Punjab from time to time without realising that she was unearthing a matter which would subsequently result into disclosure of cooperative societies financial scam. Such actions of the writ petitioner angered the Chief Minister of Punjab, who turning against her became vindictive and in the result a campaign of harassment was initiated against her.
3. It is mentioned in paragraph 19 of the memorandum of writ petition that on many occasions the Chief Minister of Punjab made it clear to the writ petitioner and her husband who is presently a Minister in the Punjab Government that an example would be made of her since she had attempted to undermine the position of the Chief Minister. In such circumstances a case was fabricated against her on the report of Mr. Kamran Rasool Director Finance Punjab Highway Authority and the charge against her was that of changing membership register of GSSPCHS. Such pressure tactics were used to compel her to withdraw summaries and when she did not yield, her transfer orders were passed and prosecution cell was set up to dig out material in support of the case against her. On 1-2-1991, Chief Secretary Punjab as Authorised Officer,' appointed an enquiry committee in order to hold formal enquiry against her under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. She requested that she be transferred to the Federal Government and enquiry proceedings may also be transferred to be conducted by officer of the Federal Government but her request went unheeded. In such circumstance she filed writ petition in the High Court.
4. After presentation of writ petition, Lahore High Court passed order of admission on 10-8-1992 which is a short order and for the sake of pertinence it is being reproduced as under:--- "It is forcefully contended by the learned counsel that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were based on mala fide inasmuch as there is voluminous documentary evidence available on record to demonstrate that the action taken against the petitioner was tainted with malice. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hamid Khan and others (PLD 1965 SC 671) and the Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others (PLD 1972 SC 279) in support of his contention.
In the circumstances, he argues that the proceedings are without jurisdiction on the face of it. The question raised by the learned counsel is of considerable importance and as such the petition is admitted to regular hearing. Notice shall issue to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the meantime no adverse order shall be passed against the petitioner subject to notice. A counter-affidavit shall also be filed in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner."
5. Aggrieved against the order of admission of writ petition as reproduced above Government of Punjab and others filed petition in this Court for leave to appeal on the grounds which are reflected into paragraphs of leave granting order which are reproduced as below:- "4. The Provincial Government seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Judge. In support of this petition it is contended that the dispute raised by Ms. Sarosh Sultan before the High Court was one which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and as such the High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain her petition. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22), Muhammad Sarwar v. Government of Punjab (1990 SCM R 999) and Khaliur Rehman v. Government of Pakistan.(PLD 1981 Kar. 750). On his part Mr. Raza Kazim who has appeared on behalf of Ms. Sarosh Sultan, has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of IA. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041) contends that the High Court's jurisdiction was not barred in this case.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the question raised on behalf of the Provincial Government needs serious consideration. We would accordingly grant leave to appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the interim relief allowed by the High Court to respondent No,1 shall remain suspended. The appeal should be listed for hearing at a very early date."
6. We have heard in detail learned counsel for the parties before us. Learned Advocate-General, Punjab submitted before us that writ petition was filed in the High Court on 10-8-1992 and on the same day order of admission was passed and interim stay was granted with notice to the other side. It was further stated by him that no counter-affidavit was filed in the High Court on behalf of appellants herein in connection with hearing of stay application but instead a separate application was filed on their behalf for vacation of stay under section 151, Cr.P.C. (page 121 of paper book) supported by an affidavit containing objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Nigh Court for entertaining the writ petition. We have gone through the contents of the application and affidavit filed in support thereof which are in the paper book from pages 121 to 124. Prayer in this application is for recall of order passed on 10-8-1992 on three grounds. Firstly that jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution as Federal Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear this matter. Secondly. Question of mala fides alleged by the writ petitioner is also to be decided by the Federal Service Tribunal, Thirdly writ petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No, 2304 of 1991 on the same subject-matter which was withdrawn unconditionally, hence second writ petition was not entertainable. Affidavit in support is filed by Mr. Muhammad Isamil Ghori Section Officer of S.GA. And Information Department, Government of Punjab Lahore in which grounds mentioned in the application as stated above are repeated. Learned A.-G. Punjab further stated that the application for recall of stay order and affidavit in support thereof were not placed in the Court by the office and were returned on the ground that High Court was on vacation and application for recall or stay order could not be treated as urgent work to be dealt with during vacation. On being asked whether he made an application in this respect to the Chief Justice or to Senior Vacation Judge for hearing of his application on urgent basis explaining the factual position and return of application by the office, learned A.-G. Punjab stated that it was not done and it was considered fit and proper to approach the Supreme Court with petition for leave to appeal.
7. It appears to us that no serious effort was made for hearing of application for recall of stay in the High Court or for hearing of stay application after notice during vacation. Had it been brought to the notice of the Court and urgency explained the Court if convinced would have disposed of applications or the writ petition after hearing both parties and objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court as mentioned above.
8. It also appears that orders of admission of writ petition passed by the High Court and order of stay granted with notice to the other side are orders of interim nature which are not final.
Appellants before us (respondents in the writ petition) could raise any number of objections including challenge to the jurisdiction.Of the Court and after hearing both parties it is open to the Court to come to the conclusion if satisfied that it has no jurisdiction and in the result' recall order of admission and stay or dismiss the writ petition. Seemingly High Court never got an opportunity to hear the other side or objections raised by them in the writ petition, hence could not pass final orders. It appears that the only ground which promoted appellants before us (respondents in the writ petition) to approach this Court against interim orders passed by the High Court was that High Court was having vacation and application for recall of stay filed by them was returned by the office on the ground that it did not amount urgent work. Now since vacation is over this ground is no more available and in all fairness. High Court should be allowed to dispose of application and the case according to law. There is no legal impediment in the way of High Court for deciding the question of its own jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition entertained by it. Case-law is cited in the order of admission of writ petition passed by the High Court and likewise case-law is cited in the order passed by this Court at the time of grant of leave. High Court is competent to decide the question of jurisdiction after hearing both parties.
9. Learned Advocate-General Punjab in support of the proposition that against the interim order passed by the High Court interference can be made by the Supreme Court, has filed copy of unreported judgment in C.P.L.A. No,44-L of 1992 dated 19-2-1992 titled Government of Punjab and another v. Dr. Shamim Waheed Sheikh. In that case in an attempt to change the date of birth in the service record to avoid superannuation writ petitioner filed an application directly to the Chief Minister who directed issue of necessary notification which was resisted by the Chief Secretary on the ground that it was against rules. High Court admitted writ petition and allowed writ petitioner to continue in service on the basis of order of Chief Minister. Official respondents in that writ petition moved an application for recall of order of stay with objections enumerated therein and the Court ordered that the said application he heard alongwith main petition within six months. This Court observed that High Court omitted to notice that writ petitioner was in serious breach of service discipline and approaching the Chief Minister directly and thereby deprived herself of equitable interim relief. Resultantly petition was converted into appeal and order of stay granted by the. High Court was set aside and further High Court was allowed to decide writ petition on merits without interim order being available. This case for reasons stated therein is distinguishable. It is stated at the Bar by the counsel that in the instant case no final order is passed as yet in departmental proceedings against respondent Not.
10. For facts and reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal with observation that writ petition be disposed of by the High Court finally after hearing both parties within one month from the date of this judgment. On 10-3-1993 we dismissed this appeal by short order for reasons to be recorded later, which are as stated above.