' CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J.--This order shall be read as a part and in continuation of our short order dated 31-1-1995, whereby writ petition has been dismissed in limine.
2. Through this Constitutional Petition Mr. M.D. Tahir, Advocate of this Court, a citizen of Pakistan, aggrieved by certain acts and commissions/incidence of crimes committed during the previous regimes, dissatisfied with certain internal and external policies of the present regime and disgruntled with the working of the Parliament as well as the Provincial Assemblies etc. Has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or order to dissolve National as well as Provincial Assemblies, to hold referendum in the country, to hold a fresh elections in the country and to direct the appointment of a caretaker Government during the interregnum.
3. The petitioner has chosen to argue petition himself. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has appeared (on Court's call) to assist the Court, at limine stage. The petitioner has contended that there has been "Loot Khasoot" in the country since 1980 inasmuch as Railway Line and wood disappeared from the Railway Line running between Alipur Chatha to Qadirabad worth crores of rupees, Ferry valued crores of rupees was taken away from Qadirabad Head Works at river Chenab, Railway Line between Sambrial and Head Marala and Narowal to Dera Nanak was removed, Iron Bridge valuing 100 Billions of rupees was removed in the year 1980 onward; that internal and external policies adopted by the P.P.P. Government particularly on Kashmir issue, collection of taxes, distribution of Zakat etc. Are not up to the mark; that there is a price hike in the country and that law and order situation in general and in Karachi in particular is not satisfactory, therefore it is necessary that President of Pakistan as well as Governor of the Punjab, who are respondents Nos.1 and 2 in this writ petition are directed to dissolve the National as well as Provincial Assemblies in accord with the provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction, to hold a referendum in the country and till the new election are held to appoint a Care-taker Government consisting of Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Air Marshal 4sghar Khan and Mr. S.M. Zafar.
4. We have asked the petitioner to address arguments with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to issue direction in the nature as prayed for, justiciability of the political issues raised in this Constitutional petition, competency of the petition in the absence of the impleadment of the Provinces of Sindh, Balochistan and N.-W.F.P. As parties to the petition and also to satisfy us about the locus standi of the petitioner to ask for relief prayed for on the basis of his own opinion of issues, who is one individual out of more than 12 crores of people who have elected their public representatives to perform their functions in accord with the provisions of written Constitution and the laws prevalent in the country, for a period of five years, which period is to expire in the year 1998. The petitioner contends that this Court being a highest Court at the appex of the Provincial judiciary and Custodian of the Constitution there is neither any bar nor limits on the exercise of powers of judicial review by this Court which is not only conferred by the Constitution but is also in the nature of the devine jurisdiction, and that the petition is competent as the petitioner being a citizen of Pakistan has locus standi to file this petition and ask for the reliefs as prayed for. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, learned Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan has controverted the correctness of allegations levelled against the present regime, has supported the Government policies both internal and external and has contended that neither the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition nor the issues raised in the petition which are of political nature are justiciable in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence according to him the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record which consists of news items which had been appearing in the press' The acts and omissions as well as the alleged criminal acts which according to the petitioner took place or were committed during the previous regimes if correct can become subject-matter of independent criminal cases and be dealt with in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he has already challenged the legality of some of Those actions in separate petitions filed earlier, which are still pending. The policies of the present regime if not liked by the petitioner is not a sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner's point of view is correct viz. The legality, propriety or otherwise of the policies of the Government which has been elected by. The people of Pakistan for a period of 5 years and under the Constitution has a right to rule the country for the said period. Decision to dissolve the Assemblies by the President and the Governors is to be taken by them in accord with the provisions of the Constitution, and, therefore, this power cannot be taken over by the High Court nor any such direction as prayed for can be issued against the aforementioned two functionaries as per bar of jurisdiction as contained under Article 248 of the Constitution. Difference of opinion and rows in the Assemblies which is being made the basis to claim dissolution thereof is in fact a part of the game in a Democratic set up, which set-up has its own beauties worst type of Democracy Government is better that best type of dictatorship.
Difference of opinion and hence heated discussions and sometimes a practical row is not something unnatural when the decision of issues are to be taken in a Democratic manner.
Acuteness of the differences can differ keeping in view the characteristics of the people involved keeping in view their sense and capacity of tolerance to hear and bear with the point of view of others but it does not mean that such like incidents will necessarily be sufficient to conclude that the system itself has failed, and, therefore, should be ordered to be packed. Courts do not act in the vacuum besides the fact that the judiciary being third organ_of the State has to work in its own area and is not to interfere in the area of legislature and the executive so long as there is no transgression from the limits laid down by the Constitution. Decision of political issues and adoption of policies being the exclusive prerogative of the sitting Government, such political issues are not justiciable before this Court. In case of Hakim Khan and 3 others v. Government, of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others PLD 1992 Supreme Court 595, it has been held that all the three organs of the State namely judiciary, executive and the legislature have to perform their functions within the four corners of the area assigned to each organ by the Constitution. In case of A.G. Prayagi v. State of M.P. And others AIR 1987 M.P. 25, where a petitioner who was a tax-payer filed a Constitutional petition seeking a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus for removal of Cabinet Minister and high officers of Government department for misuse of power and public funds and in this behalf to direct the Chief Minister to advise the Governor to do the needful, it was held that such a petition cannot be held to be bona fide and hence the petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition and further that decision of such questions is outside the purview of writ jurisdiction, hence the writ was held to be incompetent and it was held that proper forum to raise such issues was"Lok Ayukt and Up-bok Ayukt Adhiniyam". In paragraph 8 of the been held as under:- "Under Article 163 of the Constitution, there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Governor appoints a Minister on the advice of the Chief Minister and holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. A Minister can be dismissed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Cabinet is accountable to the State Legislature and can hold offices so long it enjoys the confidence of Lok Ayukt Evam Up-Lok Ayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and under section 7 they are empowered to enquire into allegations of misuse of power favouritism, nepotism and corruption against Ministers including Chief Minister and public servants. Action can be taken by the Government on the report under section 12. Article 226 is not the forum at the first instance to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against the Minister and the Head of the Department, moreso when the allegations are controverted as being false and malicious. The writ jurisdiction cannot be used to wash dirty linen. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the Chief Minister to advise the Governor to dismiss the respondent No, 2 and to the Minister to dismiss the respondent No,3. The petitioner, if he has genuine grievances to make, should approach the Lok Ayukt and Up-Lok Ayukt. The petition is incompetent and the prayer made in the petition is outside the purview of this Court. The petitioner's two petitions M.P. Nos. 950 and 2047 of 1984 against his suspension and D.E. Will be considered on their own merits."
' In case of Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. v. The State PLD 1978 SC 40, while discussing extent of powers of judicial review their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that it must be clearly understood that in judging whether an action taken by the President or the Chief Martial Law Administrator is valid under the law of necessity, the Court is not to sit in appeal over the executive or legislative authority concerned, nor substitute its own discretion for that of the competent authority. The responsibility for the relevant action, its methodology and procedural details, must rest on that authority. It has further been held that the Court would traverse outside scope of its powers of judicial review in dictating to Government procedural and administrative details necessary for holding elections. In case of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Secretary to the Government of N.-W.F.P. Communications and Works Departments, Peshawar v. Muhammad Said Khan and another PLD 1973 SC 514 at page 520 of the report, it has been held that: "The High Court cannot itself make any executive order, its functions being confined to issuing of directions on matter of law. Therefore, where an administrative or executive officer acts under a law, the High Court will control the action by an appropriate order only if he goes out of law, i,e, exercises a jurisdiction not vested in him by law."
' It has further been held that while determining as to whether the allegation against the Bank Officer amounted to misconduct or not, it could only be determined after a satisfactory inquiry and the High Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Inquiry Officer. In case of Humayun Saifullah Khan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 599) if an order of dissolution of Assembly is to be passed by the High Court, it will also amount to disqualification of all the members of the Parliament as well as the Provincial Assemblies which will definitely be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court as conferred by Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473), dissolution order of Parliament passed on the basis of far more serious allegations was declared to be illegal and without a lawful authority.
6. Resultantly, this petition has no force, hence is &missed in limine.