' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---The brief facts, as alleged by the petitioner (Mushtaq Hussain), are that he is the bona fide purchaser of Toyota Corolla Car (Model 1989) bearing registration No,PRQ 4754, for valuable consideration as he had purchased the same on 8-9-1995 from Gul Mir (respondent No,4), after taking all precautions. That in this respect, he had also approached the Motor Registration Authority, Peshawar who had verified that the car was duly registered.
2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that on 11-10-1995, when the car was being driven by Gul Mir (respondent No,4), it was stopped at Nowshera by respondent No,3 (Deputy Superintendent, Customs Mobile Squad) who asked him to produce all the relevant documents to show that the car was legally imported. Since respondent No,4 failed to do so, the car was seized by respondent No,3.
3. Accordingly respondent No,4, handed over the car to respondent No,3. He also handed over the registration book of the car, alongwith a transfer letter dated 8-9-1995 (executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No,4). He further stated that the car, alongwith its registration book, is still in the custody/possession of respondent No,3 whereas the photo copy of the transfer letter, which was returned, has been attached with this writ petition as Annexure A.
4. That, thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No,1 (Collector Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Peshawar) for the return/release of the car. That the petitioner has not been informed so far about the fate of his application. However, he has been verbally told that his application has been turned down.
5. That no other efficacious/adequate remedy is available to him, therefore, he has set on foot this writ petition and has challenged the legality of the "seizure" by respondent No,3 as the same is without lawful authority and hence illegal and as such of no legal effect.
6. The petitioner's grievance is that he, after due deligence, had purchased the car (duly registered) from the open market, therefore, he was a bona fide purchaser of the same and that a vested right had accrued to him in respect of the car in question. According to him the "seizure" of the car has violated the protection granted to him under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He, therefore, prayed that the seizure/impounding of the car by respondents Nos.1 to 3 be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that respondents Nos.1 to 3 be accordingly directed to return the car to him forthwith.
7. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 were directed to file parawise comments. The order was complied with and the requisite comments were filed on 20-11-1995.
8. It was submitted that the car in question was not seized from the petitioner but from Gul Mir (respondent No,4) on 11-10-1995 who was driving the car at relevant time. That respondent No,4 was requested to produce the relevant documents showing the legal import of the car but he failed to do so. That only document which respondent No,4 produced before the seizing officer was an Auction Certificate (No,493/CUS/86095 dated 24-1-1995) allegedly issued by the Headquarter, Assistant Collector, Customs House, Quetta. Since respondent No,4 could not show that he was in lawful possession of the car, therefore, notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 was served on him. That in the first instance respondent No,2 approached the Excise and Taxation Officer, Peshawar vide his Letter No, Nil dated 9-10-1995 and requested him to supply the photo copies of all the documents on the basis of which the vehicle was registered and was allotted Registration No,PRQ-4754. The E.T.0./Motor Registration Authority, Peshawar accordingly sent the photostat copy of "Form-E" (duly attested by him) wherein it was mentioned that the car was being "provisionally" registered on the basis of the Auction Certificate. Strangely the said Auction Certificate was not supplied to respondent No .2 .
9. Later, Letter No,V-CUS(DV)AS/54/95/5512, dated 18-10-1995, was addressed to the Assistant Collector (H.Q) Customs House, Quetta, in this respect wherein it was mentioned:- "This Custom House is investigating a case against Vehicle No,PRQ4754. Photo copies of the Auction Certificate No,493/CUS/86095, dated 24-1-1995 issued by he H.Q. Assistant Collector, Customs House, Quetta, on the basis of which the vehicle has been registered are enclosed.
' It is requested that the authenticity of the abovementioned Auction Certificate may kindly be confirmed to the undersigned at the earliest possible."
10. The Assistant Collector, Customs (Car Section), Quetta vide his Letter No,8- Misc./Veh./App/Car/PT./95/2103, dated 30-10-1995 replied as under:- "Please refer to Peshawar Collectorate's Letters C.No,V-CUS (DV)AS/54/95/5512 dated 18-10-1995 and C.No,V.CUS/(DV)/AS/49/95/5527 dated 19-10-1995 on the subject cited above.
' It is to inform you that the vehicles Toyota Corolla (Saloon) Car bearing Engine No,101335801, Chassis No,CE90-5031046, Model 1989 and vehicle Motor Car Toyota Corolla bearing Engine No,SA3268090 Chassis No,AE91-8003259 and Model 1989 have not been auctioned by this Collectorate and copies of the documents supplied by the owner are apparently fake and forged."
11. The respondents specifically alleged that the present writ petition is the result of collusion between the petitioner and Gul Mir (respondent No,4) because the petitioner has no locus standi to knock at the doors of this Court as the car was not "seized" from his possession and that it was seized from Gul Mir (respondent No,4) when he was driving the same. It was further alleged that, in the circumstances, the petitioner was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and that, therefore, he had not come to the Court with clean hands. Accordingly he was note entitled to any relief to be given by the High Court in its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. According to them, the writ petition was without any substance and was liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that if the writ is accepted, in the circumstances of this case, it would amount to legalize the forgery committed by the petitioner/respondent No,4, who had produced forged documents before the Motor Registration Authority, Peshawar, in respect of auction proceedings, allegedly conducted at Quetta and got the car registered.
12. Rejoinder to the abovementioned comments was submitted wherein the allegations contained in the written comments were controverted and the assertions made in the writ petition were reiterated. It was alleged that the car was duly auctioned by the Collector of Customs at Quetta and that the "Auction papers" were factually produced before the Motor Registration Authority, Peshawar on the basis of which the car was duly registered. That it was for this reason that on the request of the respondents the Motor Registration Authority, Peshawar had verified the correctness of the registration of the car and had also informed that the relevant documents were available in the office. It was further alleged that the "bogus" and "fake papers" were being introduced by the respondents in order to grab the car. It was submitted that the petitioner wanted to transfer the car in his name but the registration book was in the possession of the respondents and, therefore, he could not do the needful well within time. It was further alleged that the application submitted by the petitioner for the return of the car was not being decided by the Collector of Customs, Excise and Taxation, Customs House, Peshawar (respondent No,1) because of ulterior motives as someone, amongst the respondents, was interested to grab the car. It was alleged that the petitioner is also considering to take an appropriate legal action, against Gul Mir, respondent No,4.
13. We have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Afridi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Barrister K.G. Saber, Advocate assisted by Mr. Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 at length and have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
14. It may be stated at the very outset that Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides an extraordinary remedy to the aggrieved person of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when he has no other legal remedy available to him under the ordinary law of the land. In case Ch. Abdul Qadir v. Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd., reported as 1980 SCM R 280, it was held that if a persons voluntarily fails to avail himself all the remedies available to him under the civil law, he has no locus standi to maintain writ petition in the High Court. Similarly, in Wealth Tax Officer v. Shaukat Afzal and others 1993 SCM R 1810 the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan did not approve the invoking of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by abandoning or bypassing the statutory remedy available to the aggrieved person, without reasonable cause.
15. In the case in hand, after going through the record, we are of the view that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person at all because the car in question was registered in the name of Gul Mir (respondent No,4) and was seized by the Customs Authorities from him. It was he who was served with a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, therefore, only he had the locus standi to knock at the door of this Court for the redress of his grievance. In our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi whatsoever to file the present writ petition.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had purchased the car in question vide Open Transfer Letter dated 8-9-1995 (Annexure 'A') from Gul Mir (respondent No,4), is vague, amorphous to the point of being indecipherable. If the petitioner had, in fact, purchased the car vide Annexure ' A', we fail to understand as to what prevented him from transferring the ownership of the said car in his name, in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. For the sake of convenience the same is reproduced as under:- "32. Transfer of ownership.--(1) Within thirty days of the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter, the transferee shall report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides and shall forward the certificate of registration of the vehicle to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered therein.
(2) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the original registering authority."
17. Accordingly, the petitioner was bound under the law to approach the registering authority on or before 8-10-1995 i,e,, within 30 days from 8-9-1995, the alleged date of purchase of the car and get the car transferred/registered in his name. Needless to mention that the car was seized from respondent No,4 much after the said date i,e,, on 11-10-1995. In the circumstances, we are constrained to remark that the petitioner was/is not the owner of the car in question (as the Open Transfer Letter does not confer any title) and the intent and purpose of filing this writ petition was/is to circumvent/defeat the provisions as contained in section 32/25 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. This petition is, therefore, inspired/motivated by and mala fide and has been filed with the sole purpose, intention and objective to use the process of the Court to the advantage of the petitioner/respondent No,4.
18. Secondly, the car has been seized under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act IV of 1969) and the matter has not been adjudicated upon by the Customs Authorities under section 179 till date. After the adjudication order is passed by the Customs Authorities, then two more remedies are available to the aggrieved person (respondent No,4) as in the first instance he can file an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) under section 193 of the Customs Act and, thereafter, if he fails to get any relief from there, then he can approach the Federal Government by filing a revision petition under section 196 of the Customs Act and after exhausting all the remedies, mentioned above, the aggrieved person may approach this Court by filing writ petition and challenge the vires of the said orders, if advised.
19. We would, however, like to direct the concerned Customs Authorities to dispose of the adjudication proceedings expeditiously/swiftly. Similarly, the Director, Excise and Taxation, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar is directed to enquire into the matter, fix responsibility and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the defaulting officials within reasonable time. Copies of this judgment be sent to them immediately.
20. This writ petition is misconceived, without any substance and rejected accordingly.
Petition rejected.