The petitioner through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeks declaration to the effect that the respondent had no authority to summon the petitioner and to proceed against him in cases:---
(1) Case F.I.R. No.6, dated 6-5-1985 under section 161, P.P.C. And 5(2)/47, P.C.S., P.S., Dace Punjab.
(2) Case F.I.R. No.13, dated 2-6-1987 under sections 409/420/218/109, P.P.C. And 5(2)/47, P.C.A., P.S., Dace Punjab.
(3) Case F.I.R. No. 14, dated 22-6-1987 under Sections 409/420/109/218, P.P.C. And 5(2/)47, P.C.A., P.S., Dace Punjab.
(4) Case F.I.R. No.13/88 under sections 409/b20/468/471/218/201/109, P.P.C. And 5(2)/47, P.C.A., P.S. Dace Punjab-
(5) Case F.I.R. No.14/88 under section 5(2)/47, P.C.A., P.S., Dace Punjab. as were withdrawn by the competent Authority.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Government servant in B.P.S.-19, allegedly one Agha Ashfaq Hussairi (now dead) had moved complaint against the petitioner; due to which his grant of move-over to B.P.S. And promotion as Chief Engineer was delayed; filed Writ Petition No.5754/89; during the pendency of the aforementioned petition; the petitioner was promoted as Chief Engineer; in view of the promotion and giant of B.P.S.-19; the writ petition was disposed of' by Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh on 12-7-1993 as borne fruit to that extent and in regard to the inquiry and proceedings on the basis of the said application being held in respect of charge of corruption observed that:--- "The inquiry is still underway and in case a finding is given by the Inquiry Officer that the case against the petitioner was made out and challan is submitted to the Court he shall be at liberty to seek any remedy against the same---
3. Allegedly in the petition, Jamil Murtaza Hussain, Secretary Punjab Local Government Board on behalf of Secretary of Local Government vide Letter No.L.O.S. (Engg)-T (I)/79-P; dated 13-7-1993 intimated the respondent that the Government after due consideration has decided to withdraw the aforementioned cases against the petitioner and directed that no further action/proceedings should be taken in the aforementioned cases and a copy was sent to the petitioner accordingly.
Later on the petitioner was summoned by the Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, in connection with the investigation of the aforementioned cases in spite of allegedly withdrawal of cases by the competent Authority, hence this petition.
4. As per para wise comments filed by the respondent; it has been submitted that the order, dated 13th July, 1993 aforementioned did not mention the designation of competent Authority and was passed without asking the views/comments of Anti-Corruption Establishment; the Secretary Local Government, Board when sought vide letter dated, 3-8-1993 to intimate the competent authority who had passed the order; the said officer intimated vide letter dated 19-8-1993 that the order was passed by the then Minister for Local Government and Rural Development Department; further intimated that was done not as a result of examination/recommendation of the Department but on his own and the orders were beyond jurisdiction; further intimated that it was the considered view of the Department that the cases should not be withdrawn.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that one the Government had withdrawn the cases; the respondent has no lawful authority to continue with any proceedings with regard to aforementioned cases and the challan submitted against the 'petitioner is ab initio and unwarranted under the law as the then Minister was a competent Authority.
6. The learned counsel by the respondent at the very outset raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution.
7. It is a well-settled principle of law that one of the condition for grant of relief in which jurisdiction of the High Court is that the petitioner B before it should not have any alternative adequate remedy". The opening words of the Article 199 of the Constitution are reproduced for ready reference as under:--- 199---(1) "199---(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by the law."
8. True Constitutional jurisdiction can be exercised in appropriate cases; involving fiscal rights and on the allegation of misapplication of law or process of power stepped into examination whether or not public functionary concerned acted in accordance with the powers conferred on him by the statute.
9. The question which arises in this petition is whether the withdrawal of cases was by the competent Authority or not is a controverted question of fact; such a question even otherwise cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in view of the dictum laid down by their lordship in case Mian Muhammad and others v. Municipal Committee through its Chairman 1983 SCM R 732; further the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to issue direction on matters of law and cannot make any executive orders; it can only control the actions by an appropriate order if that order goes out of law, that is, exercise of jurisdiction by an officer not vested in him by law; without pre--judging-the matter on facts, the petitioner is directed to seek his remedy from the concerned competent Authority; Constitutional petition in such a subject is not in any case competent, hence is dismissed.