CHAUDHARY KHURSHID AHMAD, J.- M/s Abbas Khatak and Maqbool Hussain Sadiq respondents No. 3 & 4, in this writ petition were working as Deputy General Managers in Passco Lahore which is a public limited company with its Administrative Control vesting in the Federal Government of Pakistan. Services of respondent No. 3 were terminated in the year 1983, whereas that of respondent No. 4 in 1988. Various departmental appeals and representations filed by them seeking their reinstatement in service did not succeed and ultimately in its resolution dated 30.11.1994 it was decided by the Board of Directors of the company that the said respondents cannot be reinstated as they (were proven corrupt. The respondents approached Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is the Chief Executive of the Federal Government, who issued directives dated 5 and 8th of December, 1994 to reinstate them. Chairman of the Passco who is a Federal Secretary vide memorandum dated 26.12.1994 directed Managing Director Passco, Lahore to implement the above referred directives vide the fax message dated 20.12.1994 reproduced below: FAX MESSAGE MOST IMMEDIATE.
No: F-2-31/8-Food-II, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agri. & Livestock.
ISLAMABAD, The 20th December, 1994.
Maj.Gen.Wasif Ali, Managing Director, PASSCO, Billaur Palace, 29-Mcleod Road, Lahore.
Subject: REINSTATEMENT OF M/S ABBAS KHAN KHATTAK, EX-DGM AND MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, EX- DGM (Audit), PASSCO IN SERVICE.
Dear Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 5.12.1994 and No. F-2-8/88- Food-II, dated 8.12.1994, on the above subject and to say that the Prime Minister's Secretariat has directed to implement the orders of the Prime Minister's of Pakistan without further delay and furnish Charge Assumption Reports of the incumbants direct to the Prime Minister's Secretariat by addressing the same to Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Joint Secretary (A), Prime Minister's Secretariat, Islamabad, under intimation to this Ministry.
2. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS) Section Officer.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Mr. Abbas Khan Khattak, H. No. 4-Sector L-I, Phase-Ill, Hayatabad, PESHAWAR.
2. Mr. Maqbool Hussain Siddiqui, H.No. 62-B, Sector No. 2, Khayabane Sir Syed, Rawalpindi.
They are directed to report to PASSCO for duty under intimation to MINFAL & P.M. SECRETARIAT.
Copy also forwarded to the Prime Minister's Secretariat (Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, J.S. (A), with reference to his U.0.6(296)/E/94/DSAI dated 15.12.1994).
Sd/.
(MUHAMMAD YOUNAS)
SECTION OFFICER.
The company hence intends to reinstate respondents No. 3 and 4 fortwith.
2. Mr. Pervez Iqbal Ran a, who is a Purchase Officer of the company and is serving in Grade 16, claiming himself to be the President PASSCO Officer's Association (Registered) Pakistan, has filed this Constitutional Petition to ' challenge the legality and vires of the above referred directives/order, has further prayed for issuance of writ of quo-warranto against respondents No. 3 and 4 asking them to show the authority under which they have obtained directive of reinstatement of their service and the respondent No. 2 to show authority under which he has assumed the powers of the Board of Directors. It has further prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to act strictly in accordance with law and not to yield to any political pressure.
This writ petition was placed before me on 28.12.1994 on which date copy of the same was handed over to Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, learned Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan to seek instructions in the matter and assist this court today when case has again been taken up.
Preliminary arguments have been heard.
3. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that services of respondents No. 3 & 4 had been terminated on the allegations of corruption. The Board of Directors, which is the final Appellate Authority had dismissed their appeal/representation for reinstatement, therefore, neither the Prime Minister of Pakistan, nor respondent No. 2 had lawful authority to direct their reinstatement in service, and, therefore, the impugned order/directives of reinstatement of service of respondents No. 3 & 4 are illegal and are without lawful authority. On my query, learned counsel has admitted that PASSGO is a public limited company, which has been incorporated under the Companies Act, and is governed by its Article of Association. He has further conceded that the said Company has not been created under any Statute. I have asked the learned counsel to point out as to what are the service rules which govern the sendee relationship of the employees viz-a-viz the company? He stated that it is The Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Services Corporation (STAFF) Services Regulations, 1979, which govern the service relationship of the employees of the Company which are not statutory in nature.
4. Maj. Muhammad Akram, Managing Director PASSCO has appeared on behalf respondent No. 1 and has stated that the said respondent has no objection to reinstate respondents No. 3 and 4.
5. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has contended that the petitioner being grade-16 employee has no locus standi to file the present writ petition inasmuch as he has no personal interest in the matter and further that no vested right of his shall be adversely effected by implementation of impugned directive/orders; that Prime Minister of Pakistan being Chief Executive of the Federation and the PASSCO being under the administrative control of the Federal Government as per entry No. 31 of Rules of Business, 1973, the directive issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and further order passed by the Chairman PASSCO, who is also the Chairman of Board of Directors in whom the overall management of the Company vests are valid and hence respondents No. 3 & 4 are entitled to be reinstated and that service relationship between the company and its employees is that of Master and Servant therefore, decision of the company to reinstate its on employees even under a directive is not amenable to exercise of judicial review by this Court. Elaborating the above argument further learned counsel contends that as the PASSCO has no objection to the reinstatement of respondents No. 3 & 4, the petitioner cannot have any cause of grievance to take exception to impugned directives/intended decision and to challenge the same before this court.
As regards the prayer for grant of writ of quo-warranto, learned counsel has contended that as yet respondents No. 3 and 4 have not been reinstated and as they are not holding any post so far, writ petition to the above extent is mis-conveived and is without any actionable cause of action. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied upon the following cases:
(i) The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore Vs. The Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha, (2) The Regional Transport Authority, Lahore and (3) The Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore (PLD 1958 S.C. 437).
(ii) Salahuddin and 2 others Vs. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 SC 244);
(iii) University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others Vs. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR1093);
(iv) M.H.Mirzs Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 1024);
(v) State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan, Karachi Vs. Federal Government of Pakistan through, Secretary Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 1341);
(vi) Mrs. Anisa Rehmdn Vs. P.IA.C. And another (1994 SCMR 2232);
(vii) Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager, Govt. Transport Service, Lyallpur Vs. The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through ,tr Secretary and others (PLD 1964 Lah. 743) and
(viii) Anjuman Aroian, Bhera Vs. Abdul Rashid and others (PLD 1982 SC 308).
6. In reply to the aforementioned arguments Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as respondent No. 1 is bound to act in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner ha$ locus-standi to file this writ petition and even if the service relationship of the employees of Corporation is governed by the principle of "Master and Servant", this petition is competent and the directive issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan is illegal and without a lawful authority. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:
(i) Salahuddin and 2 others Vs. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 SC 244);
(ii) Mrs. Anisa Rehman Vs. P.IA.C. And another (1994 SCMR 2232);
(iii) Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur Vs. The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through its Secretary and others (PLD 1964 Lahore 743) and
(iv) Karam Hussain Vs. Daily Mashriq and 2 others (PLJ 1992 Lahore 121)
7. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the record and have also gone through the relevant case law on the subject. In case of "Tariq Transport Co., Lahore" (supra) while deciding the question of locus-standi of a person to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, at pages 452, 454, 465 & 497 of the report it has been held that it is basic principle that a person seeking judicial review of administrative or quasijudicial action must show that he has a direct personal interest in the act which he challenges before his prayer for review is entertained. He does not have standing to sue unless he is interested in and affected adversely by the decision of which he seeks review. His interest must be of a personal and not of an official nature. An application for an order of certiorari can only be made by an aggrieved party and not merely be one of the public, or in the case of an application for an order of mandamus it is an established rule that the applicant must show that there resides in himself a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought.
Where the Provincial Transport Authority was admitted by the High Court as a party to a writ petition preferred by a private party against the Regional Transport Authority, while the former had no interest in the matter which was the subject matter in the petition, and the Provincial Transport Authority after being made a party, itself substantially assumed the role of a petitioner against the Regional Transport Authority it is held that the High Court could not go into the issues raised by the Provincial Transport Authority and as such the Court is not competent merely on information of its on knowledge to commence certiorari proceedings of a similar nature under Article 170 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In case of "Mian Muhammad Abdullah, District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur" (supra) at page 755 of the report it has been held as under:- "As regards the orders about the reinstatement of Khalifa Afzal Hussain and his posting as District Manager, Lyallpur by the Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner has no locus-standi to object against them. This part of the case of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone".
In case of "Anjuman Araian, Bhera" (supra) while deciding the question of locus- standi of a person to challenge the transfer of area by Chairman Allotment Committee or Municipal Committee, Bhera, It has been held that party acting pro-bono-publico possess no locus standi to call in- question transfer of property in favour of a third party unless it is shown to have personal interest in the corpus of the property to which the law attatches some sanctity. In case of "Salahuddin and 2 others" (supra) at page-256 of the report it has been held that a public limited company created by any statute and the Governmental control thereof is limited only by certain regulations, such company is not a person performing functions is connection with the affairs of the Federation, etc. And hence is not amenable to the issuance of a writ under clauses 2(a)(i) Article 201 of the Constitution and Article 199 of the Constitution, except a writ of quo-warranto against the .
Directors of the Company who were holding public offices. In case of "University of the Punjab", Lahore and 2 others" (supra), it has been held that Efficiency Discipline Rules made by the Chancellor of the University are not statutory rules and as such Constitutional Petition complaining the violation thereof is not maintainable. In case of "M.H.Mirza" the service regulations framed by the C.D.A. Administrative control whereof also vests in the Federal Government have been held not to be enforcible in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In case of "State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan Karachi" (supra) it has been held that without violation of Fundamental rights of a citizen, a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is not maintainable Before Supreme Court. In case of "Mrs. Anisa Rehman Vs. PIA.C and another" (supra) it has been held that PIAC Rules, 1958 framed by the Federal Government under section 29 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 are not statutory rules and as such the employees of P.I .A. Are governed by the Principle of "Master and Servant". However, as the said Corporation is creation of statute, the violation of principle of natural justice can attract the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Distinguishing feature of this case is that it is a case of statutory corporation and not a case of public limited company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, has its on Articles of Association and has not been created by any Statute. In case of "Karam Hussain" (supra), where the dispute was as to whether a writ petition is competent against a Private Limited Company all shares whereof vests in National Press Trust which in terms is controlled by Federal Government under the provisions of National Press Trust Ordinance, 1960, it has been held by this Court that the writ petition is competent. This case also pertains to a Company created by a Statute and the learned Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan has pointed out that to appeal the judgment referred to above is challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The view taken in this judgment is also contrary to the one taken in case of "Salahuddin & 2 others" (supra). Hence, the judgment besides being distinguishable of facts, view taken therein, being contrary to view taken by the Supreme Court in "Salahuddin's" case cannot be followed.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Grade-16 employee of PASSCO, which is a public Ltd. Company. It is neither a statutory body, nor is it performing its function in relation to affairs of the Federation of Federal Government/Provincial Government, nor is it a Local Authority. The petitioner does not have a personal interest in the matter as he cannot compete for appointment in question, therefore, keeping in view the law declared in cases of Tariq Transport Co. Mian Muhammad Abdullah" and "Anjuman Araian, Bhera (supra) has no locus- standi to file this Constitutional Petition.
9. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding legality of the directives issued by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the order passed by the respondent No. 2, suffice it to say that the Prime Minister of Pakistan is Head of the Government of the Federation and the PASSCO being under the Administrative Control of the Federal Government, there is nothing wrong if directives are issued by the Prime Minister in the nature in question. If at all somebody could have objected to the said directives it was the PASSCO, respondent No. 1, who is ready to implement the same and is not aggrieved of It. Similarly, respondent No. 2 being Chairman of the Board of Director of the Company, order passed by him as well as with a lawful authority, which order is intended to be complied with forthwith. Therefore, the petitioner is not possessed of any actionable 'cause of grievance to challenge the legality of the aforementioned directive/order and further intended orders which may be passed by the Company. The service relationship of the employees of the Corporation is governed by the Principle of "Master and Servant", which includes in its ambit principle of "hire and fire", and, therefore, if the Company wishes to reinstate its ex- employees, may be under the order of Head of the Government or Chairman of the Board, no other employee of the same Company has any locus-standi or right to object to the said action. The respondent No. 1 is public limited and has not been created by a statute and prayer for issuance of writ of quo-warranto being pre-mature and misconceived, remedy of judicial review, as prayed for, is not available to the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, I see no force in this petition, hence, the same is dismissed in limine.