1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---The petitioner has preferred this petition impugning the decision of Home Secretary and Chairman P.R.C. Committee Sindh-, dated 28-12-1995 whereby the P.R.C.
2. And domicile of the respondent No,2 were restored by the Home, Secretary. The facts averred in the petition are that the petitioner is old and permanent resident of Shikarpur by birth since his forefathers. He acquired his education upto Intermediate Science at Shikarpur, as such permanent residence certificate and domicile certificate of Shikarpur was issued to him by the District Magistrate Shikarpur in compliance with provisions of the applicable law. The petitioner applied for admission in the first professional M.B.,B.S. In Chandka Medical College Larkana for the Session 1994-95 against 42 reserved seats for District Shikarpur. Chairman of Selection Board declined admissions to the petitioner and in his place respondent No,2, Ajeet Kumar was given admission.
3. According to petitioner admission granted to the respondent No,2, Ageet Kumar in the Medical College from the quota of District Shikarpur was illegal as he did not belong to District Shikarpur and was in fact born, brought up and acquired his entire education from primary level upto Intermediate in Larkana where his parents were permanently residing. According to the petitioner the respondent 2 has obtained permanent resident certificate and Domicile Certificate from Garhiyasin Town, District Shikarpur on the pleas of misrepresentation and fraudulent documents.
4. The petitioner has further averred in the petition that the respondent 2 concealed his place of birth and avoided to produce birth certificate before the concerned authorities while obtaining his Permanent Resident Certificate and Domicile Certificate. He therefore, committed fraud. The petitioner has stated that the respondent 2 initially obtained his National Identity Card No,421-76- 232546 from Larkana but subsequently he managed and got issued his National Identity Card fraudulently from Garhiyasin District Shikarpur on 4-1-1995 bearing No,412-76-147515. Respondent 2 filed extract of Minorities voters list before the District Magistrate Shikarpur wherein at Serial No,10 of Garhiyasin his father's name was shown as Ghanshamdas son of Madhau Das, aged 42 years.
5. Whereas, in the original voter list at the said serial No,10 the actual name was Ghansham Mal son of Naru Mal, aged 22 years. It is alleged that the respondent No,2 has tampered the said original name in the photostat copy of the voter's list and filed the same before the District Magistrate Shikarpur in order to procure the said P.R.C., and Domicile Certificate. According to the, petitioner, fraud was noticed by the Commissioner Larkana in appeal during the hearing before him, when Assistant Election Commissioner Shikarpur produced the original electoral list. The respondent No,2 or his father did not possess any urban property nor have they any business in Garhiyasin Town.
6. Respondent No,2 had shown his residence as house No,70-A, Garhiyasin in his changed National Identity Card, whereas the said house belonged to one Pardeep Kumar son of Lakshamichand. The father of respondent No,2 was running a, medical store in Larkana. In support of the above averments, the petitioner has filed copies of extract of property register, domicile and P.R.C.
7. Certificate, memo of appeal before Appellate Committee and his counter-affidavit.
8. ' The petitioner, challenged the Domicile Certificate and Permanent Residence Certificate of the respondent No,2 by way of appeal before the Commissioner, Larkana Division. The Commissioner Larkana Division allowed the appeal of petitioner and cancelled the Permanent Residence Certificate and Domicile Certificate of respondent 2 which were issued by the District Magistrate, Shikarpur. Against the order of the Commissioner Larkana, the respondent 2 filed an appeal before the Chairman Permanent Resident Appellate Committee Karachi. The petitioner was granted admission in first year professional M.B.,B.S. In Chandka Medical College, on 22-10-1995 and he started attending the classes. According to the petitioner, after receipt of the notice of appeal filed by respondent 2, petitioner engaged his Advocate to defend him before the Appellate Committee.
9. Accordingly petitioner's advocate appeared, on 19-11-1995 at 3 p.m. (time specified in notice), but the Appellate Committee adjourned the hearing of Appeal, to 19-12-1995 at 2.30. p.m. With direction that notice of adjourned date would be sent afresh to the parties. The petitioners counsel appeared on 1)-12-1995 at 2 p.m. When he was informed by the Reader that appeal has been adjourned to 28-12-1995 at 2.30 p.m. As the Chairman of the Appellate Committee was busy with other official work and notice of next date of hearing would be sent to the counsel of the parties. Till 27-12-1995 notice of the next date of hearing was not received by the counsel of the petitioner, hence on 28-12-1995 at about 2 p.m. Advocate for petitioner appeared when he was informed that appeal was allowed. The petitioner filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with sections 151 and 141, C.P.C. For setting aside ex parte order but the Appellate Committee did not pass any order on the said application till the filing of present petition.
10. ' The petitioner filed the petition before this Court and on 1-2-1996 following order was passed by a D.B. Of the Court:-- ' "Contention is that the petitioner was entitled to get admission in the Medical College but his right had been snatched away by the respondent No,2 by producing incorrect P.R.C., based on fraudulent documents. The contention is that when the petitioner came to know about the fraud played by the respondent 'No,2 in obtaining the P.R.C., he challenged the same by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner under Rule 8(i) of Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The Appeal was allowed in his favour on merit and it was held that fraud was committed by the respondent No,2 in obtaining the P.R.C. Against this order of the Commissioner the respondent No,2 went in Appeal before the P.R.C. Appellate Committee headed by the Home Secretary, who reversed the Order of the Commissioner but the grievance is that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was heard by the Appellate Committee. It is also contended that time for filing appeal before the Commissioner in this case had to start from the date of the knowledge whereas the Appellate Committee considered the date of the order and held the Appeal to be time-barred.
11. According to the learned counsel the impugned order of Appellate Committee is illegal apart from being mala fide.
12. ' Contention raised requires consideration. Admit. Notice.
(4) Notice. In the meanwhile the petitioner will continue attending the classes."
13. ' We have heard Mr. K.B. Bhutto learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh for respondent No,1 and Mr. Nuruddin Sarki learned counsel for the respondent No,2 and also perused the record.
14. Respondents 1 and 2 have neither filed any counter-affidavit nor comments to controvert the averments made in the petition. It is settled principle of law that if the contents/averments made in the petition are not disputed presumption would be that the same are true and they are not rebutted by the A other side. In this context we are fortified by the Division Bench decisions of this Court i,e, Muhammad Farooq Memon v. Government of Sindh, reported in 1986 CLC 108 and Anwar Ali and others v. Chief Engineer Irrigation Sukkur Zone and others (1986 CLC 745).
15. ' Apart from the above facts the appeal of the respondent No,2 was allowed on , the ground that the order entertaining the appeal by the Commissioner Larkana Division did not notice the point of Limitation as the domicile and P.R.C., could only be questioned within the time prescribed by law.
16. Apparently, Permanent Resident Certificate and Domicile Certificate were obtained by practising fraud, hence such an order being fraudulent would not attract the bar of Limitation. Moreover, Limitation runs from the date of B knowledge and not from the date of order. In this matter when petitioner came to know about the issuance of P.R.C., and Domicile Certificate tc respondent 2, Ajeet Kumar he promptly filed an appeal before Commissioner which was allowed. The order of Commissioner is silent on the question of Limitation which implies that the respondent No,2 did not urge the ground of Limitation in appeal before the Commissioner Larkana Division. Limitation would not come in way in respect of a fraudulent and or void order.
17. We have perused the record and have also noticed that impugned order was passed in haste without application of judicial mind. The respondent No,2 has ex facie obtained the domicile and Permanent Resident Certificate by misrepresentation and production of forged documents, manipulated National Identity Card and Voters' List. He, therefore, does not deserve any sympathy or judicial concession. We therefore, allow this petition declaring the admission of respondent No,2 as illegal which was based on manipulated domicile and I permanent resident certificate of District Shikarpur by playing fraud upon the concerned authorities. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to relief claimed by him in this petition as a result he will continue to remain as a regular student of Chanda Medical College, Larkana.