SARDAR JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---The brief facts of the case in hand, as alleged in the writ petition, are that Pajero Jeep, Model 1992 (PRO-3519) originally belonged to petitioner No.1 vide: deed, dated 24-4-1996 he agreed to sell the same to petitioner No.2 for a sum of Rs.14,40,000.
Rs.6,40,000 were paid by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 whereas upon the payment of the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000 petitioner No. l was required to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question to petitioner No.2. It was for this reason that no transfer letter was given to petitioner No.2 by petitioner No. 1.
2. It is further alleged in the writ petition that, some times later, petitioner No.2, a car dealer, sold the vehicle to respondents Nos.4 and 5 for a sum of Rs.14,55,000. Out of this amount Rs.5,00,000 were paid by respondents Nos.4 and 5 to petitioner No.2 and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.9,55,000 would be paid by them to petitioner No.2 on 18-6-1996 and thereafter, petitioner No. 2 would transfer the vehicle in their names.
3. Respondents Nos.4 and 5, however, did not pay the balance amount to petitioner No.2. Instead respondent No.5 sold the vehicle further to respondent No.6 on the basis of a fake and bogus transfer letter and applied to respondent No. l (Abdul Hamid Marwat, E.T.O. Peshawar) to transfer the vehicle in the name of respondent No.6, namely, Noor Muhammad son of Haji Mulla of Tehkal Payan, Peshawar.
4. Petitioners, when came to know about this fact, approached the E.T.O. (respondent No. 1) vide: their application, dated 19-12-1996 with the request to restrain himself from transferring the vehicle in the name of respondent No.6. However, 'the said respondent did not bother to listen to their request and transferred the vehicle, by his order, dated 9-8-1997 on the basis of a fake and bogus "transfer letter' prepared by respondent No. l (E. T. O.) in collusion with respondents Nos. 4 to 6.
5. The petitioners, it is alleged, immediately contacted the E.T.O. For the redress of their grievance and informed him about the real facts. The E.T.O. Expressed his inability to help them as they had failed to appear before him when were called upon by him, through registered post, to appear before him. The petitioners expressed their ignorance of having received any registered notice and immediately contacted respondent No.3 (Superintendent Post Office, G.P.O., Peshawar) vide: their application and enquired from him about the registered notice allegedly sent to them by respondent No. 1. The Superintendent Post Office (respondent No.3) certified that no notice was sent through registered post and that the receipts of the post office were fake and bogus (Annexures "F" and "G").
6. The petitioners, to redress their grievance, approached respondent No.2(Director, Excise and Taxation N.-W.F.P.) who after getting comments from respondent No.1 (E.T.O.) remanded the case to him for deciding the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, that the E.T.O., instead of complying with the orders of the Director Excise and Taxation, at the back of the petitioners, passed the following order:--- "Keeping in view all aspects of the case and particularly the failure of Mr. Tor Khan to get the ownership of the vehicle transferred in his name within one month of his purchasing the vehicle as required under section 32 of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 read with Rules 47 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969, the transfer order, dated 12-8-1.997 is upheld and the ownership of the vehicle is left in the name of Mr. Noor Muhammad to whom it was transferred on payment of usual fee and observing all legal formalities. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties. "
7. Resultantly the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 (The Director Excise and Taxation) but the same was not entertained and rejected straightaway although through a verbal order. Hence this petition.
8. Qazi Zakiuddin, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners present and heard at length. Record of the case perused carefully.
9. It may be stated at the very out-set that in this case quite a few factual controversies are involved such as preparation of fake/forged transfer letter, manipulation of receipts from the Post Office etc., fraudulent transfer of the vehicle in question by respondent No. 1, in collusion with respondents Nos.3 and 4, to respondent No.6, the determination of which would require recording of detailed evidence. Such matters obviously cannot be resolved/settled in writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith Civil /a Miscellaneous.
10. However, before parting with the case we would like to observe that in this case the petitioners have specifically charged respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 for having committed fraud/collusion in transferring the vehicle in question, preparing forged documents etc., in their petition, duly supported by sworn affidavit, therefore, it would be appropriate to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of writ petition and all its enclosures, to the Director, Anticorruption, N.-W.F.P.
With the directions to look into the matter and take further action, if any, in accordance with law under intimation to this Court.
11. The Additional Registrar shall inform us about the action so taken by the Director, Anti- Corruption, N.-W.F.P. Within a fortnight.