1. ' The petitioner has called into question the authority of respondent No,2, who is the Administrator, Karachi Race Club Ltd, to stop entry of the petitioner's horses or to ban his entry into the Race Club.
2. The petitioner claims to be the member of the said Club and according to him, he also is owner of 35 horses, who are being looked after by his staff. The said order has been challenged on the ground that it does not have the approval of the Managing Committee and the same has also been passed without serving a prior show-cause notice upon the petitioner and it is tainted with mala fides.
3. The first question, that has arisen in this petition, is whether a writ is maintainable against respondent No,
2. Although, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No,2 has been appointed under a Notification issued by the Government of Sindh (respondent No, 1) and hence, any order passed by him can be challenged in the Constitutional petition but the main question is, whether the said respondent is performing functions in connection with the affairs of this province. Mr. S.A. Ghaffar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought support from the case of M/s. Maniar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd (1992 CLC 2329), wherein notwithstanding the fact that S.I.T.E. Was registered as a company under the Companies Act, nevertheless it was held to be a department of the Provincial Government and hence, amenable, to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. However, in this case although, an objection had been raised on behalf of the said respondent to the effect that it being a joint stock company and registered under the Companies Act, a writ petition could not be maintained against it, but a statement was made on behalf of the Provincial Government by the Advocate-General that the said respondent was, in fact, a department of the Government of Sindh.
4. Reference in this regard was made to the cases reported in PLD 1975 Kar. 128 and PLD 1985 SC 97.
5. Consequently, it was held in this case that a writ petition was maintainable against the said respondent.
6. So far as the circumstances of the present case are concerned, even if it is accepted that respondent No,2 was appointed by the Government of Sindh to act as Administrator of the Karachi Race Club Ltd., but the mere fact that the said respondent has been appointed as administrator under the Notification issued by the said Government, cannot lead to an inference that the said respondent is performing functions either in connection with the affairs of the Federation or the Province of Sindh. Functions, which the said respondent may be performing in connection with the affairs of the Karachi Race Club Ltd, cannot be regarded as functions of the State. Reference in this regard may be nade to the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244). In this case although some officers of the joint stock companies, who are appointed under a statute or whose functions are regulated by a statute were held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction only to an extent that a writ in the nature of quo warranto could be issued requiring them to show under what authority of law they claimed to hold such office, but it was further held that no writ in the nature of mandamus could be issued. We are of the view that the observations made in the said case are fully applicable to the present case. Consequently, there can be no difficultly in holding that a writ petition in the nature of certiorari or mandamus would not be maintainable against the said respondent.
7. ' For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine together with the miscellaneous application.