MENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. - Muhammad Naseem and Muhammad Ibrahim respondents in C.As.
Nos. 39 and 40 of 1998 (hereinafter to he referred as. 'the respondents') applied to the Chief Minister of Punjab (C.M.) for grant of mining lease in .Respect of 499.79 and 404.34 acres respectively, of land for extraction of Rock Salt, for a period of 30 years, on 3.4.1996. Their applications were recommended by Ch. Armughan Suhhani MPA (pp-l08). The C.M. By two separate but identical orders dated 8.4.1996 allotted to the respondents, the area applied for in relaxation of Policy as follows:- Subject: Request of Muhammad Naseem rio Sargodha for allotment of 499.79 Acre of Land on lease for 30 Years to extract Rock Salt in Khewar Area.
On presentation of the enclosed application of Mr. Muhammad Naeem Haji Muhammad Din, r/o 13-Gulshan Bilal Colony, College Road, Sargodha, Chief Minister has been pleased to approve allotment of 499.79 acre of land on lease in relaxation of policy.
2. Further necessary action may please be taken accordingly.
(Javed Nisar Syed) Deputy Secretary-II Secretary Industries & Mineral Development Punjab, Lahore.
CC Secretary 1&C (S&GADO Director I & MD, Punjab, Ch. Armughan Suhhani, MPA, PP-108"
SUBJECT:- request of Muhammad Ibrahim r/o Sargodha for allotment of 404-34 acre of Land on lease for 30 YEARS to extract Rock Salt in Khatta Massral, Distt. Khushab.
On presentation of the enclosed application of Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim ski Haji Muhammad Din r/o House No. 10, Farooq Colony, College Road, Sargodha, Chief Minister has been pleased to approve the allotment of 404-34 acre of land on lease in relaxation of policy.
Further necessary action may please be taken accordingly.
(laved Nisar Syed) Deputy Secretary-ii Secretary Industries & Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore.
CC Secretary I & C (S&GAD) Director I & MD, Punjab.
Ch. Armughan Subhani, MPA PP-108."
3. M/s. Punjab Mineral Development Corporation appellants in C.As. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1998 claim that they had applied for allotment of mining lease of the same area for which the respondents had applied for allotment, after completion of the necessary formalities, in accordance with the Rules on 28.2.1988 to the competent authority and their application was pending for consideration when the land was allotted to the respondents by C.M. Malik Fateh Muhammad appellant in C.A. 41 of 1998 also claim that he was lessee of 500 acres of mining area adjacent to the site allotted to respondent Muhammad Ibrahim which he had offered to surrender to the authorities on account of extremely low yield of the salt and his request was under consideration before the concerned authority when respondent Ibrahim was allotted the land. It is an admitted position that both M/s. Punjab Mineral Development Corporation and Malik Fateh Muhammad were not parties in the two writ petitions filed by the respondents before the Lahore High Court. From which the present appeals arise.
4. It appears that in March, 1991, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, approved a policy, whereunder no rock Salt mining 'concession could be granted in the private sector except in a case where the applicant was a bona fide industry using the rock Salt as a raw material. As the allotment made by C.M. In favour of the respondents on 8.4.1996 was in conflict with the earlier policy decision of his predecessor Chief Minister, the Industries and Mineral Development Department (I & MDD) requested the C.M. To review his orders not only in the cases of the respondents but also in respect of, three other similar cases. On 19.9.1996 the Chief Minister directed the (1 & MD) department to review the entire policy relating to rock salt leases. While this exercise was going on in the department, the C.M.
Meanwhile issued a revised direction on 9.9.1996 approving 501.46 acres and 548.17 acres, (as against the previously allotted area of 499.70 and 404.37 respectively) mining areas near Makrach, District Chakwal and near Mattan Khurd, District Chakwal respectively, in favour of the respondents.
The revised direction of the C.M. Dated 9.9.1996, it appears was not given effect by the I & MDD and instead following up the direction of C.M. Dated 19.9.196, the Industries and Mineral Development Department recommended to the C.M. That Rock Salt policy may be reviewed by the Mineral Investment Facilitation. Authority (MIFA) constituted by Punjab Government to deal with such matter. The C.M. Though approved this proposal of I & MDD on 29.10.1996 but at the same time directed the Industries and Mineral Development Department to implement his revised orders for grant of leases to the respondents conveyed through his letter dated- 9.9.1996. The Department appears to have referred the entire matter to the then Governor of Punjab also who made the following observations on the subject on 5. 0.1996:- "Such leases should be allowed only in strict accordance with a notified Policy. I may also add that no authority has the lawful and judiciously exercisable competence to relax the Policy."
5. It appears that while the above proceedings were going on at the departmental level, the Pakistan Mine Owners Association challenged the allotment of mining areas of rock salt, to respondents, M/s. Zainab and others in relaxation of the policy decision of Government in Writ Petition No. 19994 of 1996 before the Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court in the above writ petition through an interim order dated 3.11.1996 restrained the Government of Punjab from transferring possession of the leased area to respondents and other allottees, if not already delivered. It was in this background that the respondents filed Writ Petitions Nos. 1155 and 1156 of 1997 before the Lahore High Court seeking implementation of the order of allotment of mining leases made in their favour by the C.M. During the pendency of the above writ petitions filed by the respondents, the Court directed the Industries and Mineral Development Department of Government of Punjab to decide the applications of respondents recommended by' the C.M. In the light of the decision of Chief Secretary Punjab' dated 27.5.1995, in another case. In compliance with the above direction of the High Court the Director I & MDD took up the applications of 'respondents for consideration but rejected the same on 21.7.1997. As departmental appeal was available against the order of Director J& MDD, the High Court directed the respondents to file appeal against the order of Director I & MDD within 3 days before the Secretary I & MDD and the latter was directed to dispose of these appeals, if filed, within a period of 10 days. The respondents accordingly, submitted their appeals before the Secretary I & MDD, -which were dismissed by two separate identical order dated 13.8.1997. After disposal of the appeals of respondents by the Secretary I & MDD, as aforesaid the learned ChiefJustice took up the two writ petitions filed by respondents and allowed them as follows:- "9. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that case of Mst. Zenab Bibi was at par with that of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in both the cases recommendations had been made by, the Chief Minister for the grant of lease in relaxation of the policy ban. Therefore, it is contended, and rightly so, that refusal on the, part of the respondents to allow the applications of the petitioners is discriminatory and without any justification. It was argued that the application of Mst. Zenab Bibi was sent to the Chief Minister with summary in her favour by respondents for the relaxation of policy, and the applications of the petitioners were received by respondents with the prior approval of the Chief Minister .For the grant of lease in relaxation of policy, therefore, no distinction can be drawn in both the cases. It is further submitted that leases of 10 lease holders, referred to above, were extended twice in existence of the ban policy.
10 It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that summary in favour of .Mst, Zenab Bibi has been misunderstood. The contention is devoid of any force as it was clearly indicated in the Summary dated 134.1194 that the request of Mu. Zenab Bibi can he accommodated if the Chief Minister grants necessary relaxation in the existing policy on the subject. Therefore, there_ is no ambiguity. It is now well-settled that all persons placed in similar position should be treated similarly and equally. In my view sitting on the applications of the petitioners despite a Directive of the Chief Minister is nothing but a bureaucratic tyranny, which must be discouraged.
Stand of the respondents that case of the petitioners is at par with 42 applicants who have been denied the grant of lease licence is misconceived because the orders regarding relaxation of policy like the petitioners and Mst. Zenab Bibi were not available to them.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioners which cannot be sustained and the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered and treated with that of Mst. Zenab Bibi. Accordingly, the refusal on the part of the respondents to grant lease/prospecting licence in favour of the petitioners is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction. As a consequence of this position, respondents are directed to grant Prospecting Licences in favour of the petitioners by handing over the possession of the sites applied for by them on priority basis within one week. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Petitions stand accepted accordingly."
6. Leave was granted in the above appeals against the judgment of the High Court to consider the following contentions:- "8. Leave to appeal is granted in all these petitions to consider:-
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the case of respondents as regards relaxation of policy was rightly held to be at par with the case of Mst. Zenab Bibi to hold that they were discriminated;
(b) Whether the High Court was justified under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue direction for issuance of mining licences.
9. The appeals shall be fixed for hearing on 2nd April, 1998."
7. We have heard Mr. Sh Altaf Ellahi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for appellants in C.As. 39 and 40/1998, Mr. Munir Piracha, the learned ASC for appellants in C.A. 41/1998, Mr. Muhammad Ghani, the learned ASC for appellants in C.As. 42 and 43 of 1998, Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, the learned ASC for respondent Muhammad Naseem and Mr. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, the learned ASC for respondent Muhammad Ibrahim.
8. Mr. Sh. Altaf Ellahi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, contended that during the pendency of writ petitions filed by the respondents before the Lahore High Court, their applications for grant of mining leases were rejected by the Director I & MDD on 21.7.1997 and the appeals against the order of Director I & MDD were also rejected by the Secretary I & MDD on 13.8.1997. In addition to these two adverse orders, the successor Chief Minister Punjab on a summary moved by the Law Department on 13.9.1997, withdrew the allotments of mining leases made by his predecessor to the respondents as well as to two other persons, Mian Manzoor Ahmed and Usman Saeed, in relaxation of the existing policy for grant of prospecting licences/mining leases for rock salt extraction. The learned Additional Advocate General accordingly, argued that the respondents neither challenged these orders in their writ petitions, nor they at any time sought permission of the High Court to amend their pending writ petitions suitably in view of the development which took place during the pendency of their writ petitions. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that in the absence of a challenge to these adverse orders in the writ petitions tiled by the respondents, the High Court could not grant any relief to them. It is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the question of alleged discrimination of the respondents could not be decided by the High Court in their writ petitions in the absence of Mst.
Zenab Bihi whose case was made the basis of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of 1998 while supporting the contention of learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the area recommended for allotment to respondents by the C.M.
Was the same for which they had applied according to Rules and their applications were under consideration before the authorities, and therefore, these areas could not be allotted to the respondents.
9. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto and Mr: Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of the High Court. The learned counsel further jointly contended that the applications of the respondents for allotment of mining areas were decided by the Director I & MDD on the direction of High Court and the appeal before the Secretary I & MDD was also filed on the direction of the High Court and as such the Hon'ble High Court was fully cognizant of the orders passed by Director and Secretary I & MDD respectively. In the circumstances, the omission on the part of the respondents to specifically challenge the orders passed by Director I & MDD and Secretary I & MDD in the writ petitions pending before the Hon'ble High Court by amending their petitions was of no real significance and the Hon'ble High Court could pass any appropriate order warranted by the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel vehemently argued that mere fact their applications for grant of mining leases of rock salt were not filed before the officer designate under the Rules was of no consequence as their applications after the recommendation of the C.M. Were forwarded to the concerned officer for compliance. It is also contended by the learned counsel that if the applications filed by the respondents for grant of mining leases were found deficient in any respect, the respondents could be called upon by the department to rectify the same instead of non-suiting them on that account.
10. In the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court, the following reliefs were asked for:- "In view of the above it is respectfully prayed;
(a) that the refusal by the respondents is .Granted by prospecting licence/lease may he declared illegal, void and without lawful authority,
(b) that the respondents may he directed to register and accept the application of the petitioner and grant lease of Rock Salt for a period of 30 years,
(c) that the respondents may be directed to implement the relaxation order passed/issued by the Chief Minister or in the alternate the policy of ban on grant of Lease/Prospective Licence of Rock Salt may be declared illegal, void or without lawful authority,
(d) that any other relief deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also he granted."
11. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 13.9.1997, passed by the Chief Minister Punjab on the summary of Law Department withdrawing the recommendations of his predecessor approving allotment of mining leases of rock salt in favour of the respondents in relaxation of policy, the order of Director I & MDD dated 11.7.1997, rejecting the applications of respondents for grant of mining concession rights for rock salt, and the order of Secretary I & MDD, rejecting the appeals of respondents against the above order of Director I & MDD, dated 13.8.1997 were not challenged in the writ petitions filed by the respondents hetbre the High Court and that they also did not seek leave of the High Court to amend their writ petitions so as to include a challenge to these orders. The learned counsel for the respondents,. However, jointly argued that in so far the order of Chief Minister, Punjab, dated 13.9.1997, passed on the summary of Law Department was concerned, .It was a void order as it was passed in complete disregard of the principle of natural justice without hearing the respondents and therefore, the same was rightly ignored by the High Court. Regarding orders of Director of I & MDD dated 11.7.1997 and that of Secretary I & MDD dated 13.8.1997, respectively, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents jointly is that since these orders were passed as a result of the directions given by the High Court during pendency of the writ petitions of the respondents, the High Court was fully competent to take notice of these orders and notwithstanding the omission of the respondents to challenge these orders specifically in their petitions, could decide on their validity or otherwise.
12. We have already reproduced the prayers made by the respondents in their writ petitions and the operative part of the judgment of High Court impugned in these appeals. The prayers made by the respondents in their writ petition were in the nature of a direction to the Government to implement the orders of the Chief Minister passed on their applications in relaxation of the existing policy. This prayer could not be granted in the changed circumstances without setting aside or declaring the orders dated 13.9.1997, 11.7.1997 and 13.8.1997, passed by the Chief Minister, Punjab, Director I & MDD and Secretary I & MDD respectively, as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The impugned judgment does not show that the learned Chief Justice while accepting the writ petitions filed by the respondents, consciously applied his mind to the question of validity of these orders under the law. The learned Chief Justice directed the authorities to issue the prospecting licence in favour of respondents on the sole ground that the cases of the respondents were at par with that of Mst. Zenab Bibi who was also issued prospecting licence by the authorities on the recommendations of Chief Minister in relaxation of policy and therefore, refusal to grant licences/leases to the respondents in similar circumstances amounted to treating their cases in a discretionary manner.
13. With utmost respect, the above approach of the learned Chief Justice does not appear to be correct. Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 1986 (hereafter to be referred as the Rules) which replaced the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960, have been framed under Section 2 of the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 (hereafter to he referred as the Act) which reads as follows:- "2. It is hereby declared to he expedient in the public interest that the appropriate Government shall have power to 'make rules to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(1) the manner in which, and the authority to whom, application for the grant or renewal of an exploration or prospecting licence, a mining lease or other mining concession shall he made, and the prescribing of the fees to he paid on such application;
(2) the conditions in accordance with which the grant Or renewal of an exploration or prospecting licence, a mining lease or other mining concession may be made, and the prescribing of forms for the execution or renewal of such licence, lease, and concession;
(3) the circumstances under which renewal of a licence, lease or concession as aforesaid may be refused, or any such licence, lease or concession whether granted or renewed may be revoked;
(4) the determination of the rates at which, and the conditions was subject to which, royalties, rents and taxes shall he paid by licensees, lessees and grantees of mining concession;
(5) the refinement of ores and mineral oils;
(6) the control of production, storage and distribution of minerals and mineral oils'
(7) the fixation of the prices at which minerals and mineral oils may be brought or sold; and
(8) any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the foregoing clauses of this section, and the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make ."
14. Rules framed under Section 2 of the Act or orders passed under the Rules have been given overriding effect over other enactments or instruments having effect by virtue of any enactment, under Section 4 of the Act. In view of these provisions, the Government was fully competent to lay down a policy for grant of mining leases of rock salt. It cannot be disputed that mining of salt is a sensitive operation which required high degree of skill on the part of its operator besides taking up of adequate safety measures to avoid environmental pollution and adverse effects on adjoining agricultural land. It was perhaps for this reason that the mining lessees of rock salt were restricted under the policy of the Government initially to public sector companies and corporation which were expected to operate in a more responsible and discreet manner.. However, when the Government. Decided to open the mining leases of rock salt to the private sector as well, quite a large number of applications (410) were received from the private investors requesting for leases of mining areas for prospecting rock salt. The Government therefore, decided to lease out 30,000 acres of mining areas out of 200,000 acres available area of rock salt mines in the Province of Punjab upto the year 1990. The ratio of grant of leases between the private and public sector was however, fixed at 25% .,and 75%. Accordingly out of 30,000 acres of area earmarked for lease, the private sector was allotted only 10,000 acres. Out of 410 applications received from the private sector for grant of leases, only 21 applicants were selected for grant of leases for a period of 5 years, by drawing of lots. After grant of 10,000 acres of area earmarked for private sector, the Government decided not to lease any further area in private sector until 1990. In July 1990, a Technical Committee was constituted by the Government to review its policy regarding grant of leases for mining of rock salt. This Committee, recommended continued participation of private sector but at a limited scale restricting grant of leases only to those parties who were earlier granted lease under the existing policy and had performed reasonably well. Grant of leases of mining rock salt to new parties was opposed. The Department of I & MDD on the other hand recommended restricted mining leases of rock salt in private sector only to those industrial units which were using rock salt as a raw material and further recommended cancellation of all other leases granted to the private sector. On 27.3.1991, the Chief Minister Punjab accepted the following proposal of the Depatment of Industries and Mineral Development in modification of its previous policy:- "43. Unrestricted salt mining in the private sector would, however, cause environmental and ecological hazards. In this context loss of fertile agricultural land due to salinity and brackish water is particularly cause of concern. The Department, therefore, reiterates the policy enunciated in para 37 above that the production of rock salt in the public sector may he .Supplemented/augmented by private sector to a limited extent. The existing private lessees, as given in para 3 (Page 5) of the Report of the Technical Committee on Rock Salt Mining in the Punjab, who have fulfilled their working obligation, developed expertise and have made adequate investment, may he given extension for a period of five years. No new rock salt lease in, the private sector may he granted except to bona fide industrial units using rock salt as raw material."
15. The above policy .Decision of the Government has not been revised so far and is being followed consistently from 1991. However, in March, 1994 one Mst. Zenab Bihi of Islamabad applied for grant of 557.86 acres of land near Khewra, District Jhelum, for rock salt mining. This application was considered by the Mines Committee in its meeting held on 25.1.1994 and it was decided to refer the case to the Chief Minister for relaxation of existing policy. However, the Secretary Industries in his summary.Dated 8.3.1994 made the following observation:- "Under the present policy, no new leases for rock salt cannot he granted in the private sector except for industrial undertaking and unless the policy is relaxed. In the past no such relaxation has been given."
16. On this summary the Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab on 16.3.1994 noted that 'C.M. Has desired a fresh look in this case'. As a result of above remarks of C.M., the matter was once again referred to Secretary Industries. Who on 13.6.1994 commented as follows:- "8. As desired by the Chief Minister, the case was referred to the Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab/Licensing Authority for re-examination. A copy of the report received from him is placed at Annex-D.
9. The request of Mst. Zenab Bibi-can be accommodated if the Chief Minister grants necessary relaxation in the existing policy on the subject, which is enunciated at para 3-4 of the summary.
10. However, it is submitted that in case the Chief Minister is pleased to relax the policy for Mst.
Zenab Bibi then it is apprehended that the other parties whose leases were terminated on account of the aforesaid policy decision, may resort to litigation and/or seek similar relaxation."
17. Notwithstanding the opposition by the department to the grant of the request of Mst. Zenab Bihi, the Secretary to the Chief Minister conveyed the following orders of the Chief Minister to I & MDD in the case of Mst. Zenab Bibi:- "Subject:- Grant of Rock Salt Mining Lease to Mst. Zenab Bihi over the area of 557.86 acres near Khewra District, Jhelum, MD/APP-JLM-Rock Salt (2).
13. CM has seen. He has been pleased to observe that the case of Mst. Zenab Bihi is one of compassion. He has, therefore, been pleased to accede to her request for prospecting licence for Rock Salt for a period of live years in relaxation of policy as a very special case. CM has further desired that the A.D. May kindly note that this case would not be quoted as a precedent.
(Salman Siddique)
Secretary to Chief Minister 29.6.1995 Chief Secretary Secretary Industries"
18. From the above narration of facts it is quite clear that the authority made responsible under the Rules to regulate grant of mining leases opposed the grant of lease to Mst. Zenab Bibi, however, the Chief Minister, overruled the objections of the Department and granted the mining lease in favour of Mst.
Zenab on compassionate ground and made it clear that this case will not be considered as a precedent in other cases. What were those special circumstances which persuaded the Chief Minister, to treat the case of Mst. Zenab Bibi on compassionate ground were neither brought before the High Court nor before this Court. It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that Mst. Zenab Bibi whose case was relied upon before the High Court in support of the contention that the cases of the respondents were meted out a discriminatory treatment by the concerned authorities, was neither a party in the writ petitions filed by the respondent nor she was 'afforded any opportunity to defend and distinguish her case from the cases of respondents. In the case of M/s. Standard Printing Press Vs. Sindh Social E.S.S.I (1998 SCM R 91) this Court while examining the allegation of discrimination alleged by the appellant in that case against the Provincial Government on the basis of the case of another party which was not before the Court, observed as follows:- "In the case under discussion before us the law conferred the power of applying the law by notification on the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government had exercised that power.
Such an exercise of the power had aggrieved the appellant. The appellant had, therefore, to array the Provincial Government as a party because it was the Government which was accountable for the exercise of that power. The Institution which alone has been impleaded as a party was required to act on it was not answerable for its validity and effectiveness. Similarly, the establishments or industries in whose favour discrimination had taken place had to be arrayed to establish the identity of the subject-matter. In the absence of it, the nature and the scope of the alleged discrimination could not be fully and satisfactorily adjudicated upon."
19. In view of the above-stated legal position, the learned Chief Justice while accepting the writ petitions tiled by the respondents was in no position to decide the plea of discrimination relied by the respondents in their writ petitions on the basis of the case of Mst. Zenab Bibi as neither Mst.
Zenab; Bibi was before the Court in these cases nor the facts on the basis which the case of Mst.
Zenab Bibi was decided were brought before the learned Chief Justice. Mere fact that Mst. Zenab Bibi was granted mining lease on relaxation of policy without going into the reasons for such relaxation, was not sufficient to hold that the cases of respondents were treated in a discriminatory manner. The respondents neither pleaded, nor the orders of Chief Minister passed on their applications show, that they were also granted mining leases in relaxation of policy on compassionate grounds. Apart from it, there cannot be any doubt that the allotments of mining leases in favour of respondents were made not only by-passing the procedure prescribed under the Rules but they were politically motivated. Firstly, the applications of respondents for allotment of mining leases, were made to the C.M. Directly, who is not the authority under the Rules to entertain such applications. Secondly, the applications were recommended by an M.P.A. Who had no authority under the Rules to deal with such applications. Thirdly, the C.M. Endorsed the copy of his orders passed on the applications of the respondents to the M.P.A. Who recommended the applications. Of respondents which sufficiently confirmed that political considerations outweighed the considerations relevant under the Rules. We may also mention here that the authorities responsible for issuance of mining leases under the Rules, neither supported the case of Mst. Zenab Bibi nor of the respondents and rather opposed the grant of mining leases in all these cues but they were arbitrarily overruled by the then Chief Minister. In these circumstances the learned Chief.
Justice ought to have refused to grant the relief in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is a well-settled proposition that the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be exercised by the High Court in aid of injustice. The instances are not lacking where the High Court refused to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, where the affect of granting the relief would be to perpetuate an illegality or to help the person to retain an illegality obtained advantage. In the case of Raunaq All Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) this Court while examining the objects of exercise of jurisdiction for issuance of discretionary writs in the nature of certiorari, mandamus observed as follows:- "An order in the nature of a writ of certiorari or mandamus is a discretionary order. If object is to foster justice and right a wrong. Therefore, before a person can be permitted to invoke this discretionary power of a Court, it must be shown that the order sought to he set aside had occasioned some injustice to the parties. If it does not work any injustice to any party, rather it cures a manifest illegality, then the extraordinary jurisdiction ought not to he allowed to he invoked.."
PLD 1982 SC 413), this Court after referring Raunaq A.I's case with approval observed as follows:- "Thus, if the effect of setting aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner was to restore the unjust order of the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court ought not have exercised its writ jurisdiction for bringing about such a result."
PLD 1991 SC 691), Begum Shamas-un-Nisa and Raunaq A.I's cases were quoted with approval and following observations were made:- "The High Court in its impugned judgment took a brief notice of the nature of fraud involved in this case. If what is stated in the impugned order of the High Court, or for that matter in the order of the Board of Revenue which was impugned before the High Court, is taken on its face value the appellants could not he granted any relief in exercise of Constitutional (Writ) jurisdiction. It will be so even if there is some defect, legal or otherwise, in the orders impugned before , the High Court in the said jurisdiction. See Begum Shams-unNisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi (PLD 1982 Supreme Court 413).
It was held that even if the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not legally justified in declaring an action to be without lawful authority, the.Result sought to he achieved by the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner nevertheless being just and proper and the effect of setting aside order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner being to restore unjust orders and actions of subordinate functionaries, the High Court "ought not to.Have exercised its writ jurisdiction for bringing about such result since writ jurisdiction cannot he exercised in aid of injustice". It was also held that the High Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is "not hound to interfere in all circumstances" even if the "order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not lawful". To the same effect in an earlier ruling of this Court in the well-known case of Nawab Syed Raunaq A.I etc. v. Chief ettlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 236). In somewhat more strong phraseology, this Court had held that "an order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus is a discretionary order. Its object is to foster justice and right a wrong. Therefore, before a person can be permitted to invoke this discretionary power of a Court, it must be shown that the order sought to he set aside had occasioned some injustice to the parties. If it does not work any injustice to any party, rather it causes a manifest illegality, then the extraordinary jurisdiction ought not to be allowed to he invoked."
20. In view of the above-stated well-settled legal position with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, we are of the view that the learned Chief Justice ought not to have granted the petitions filed by the respondents.
21. As a result of the above discussion, Civil Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of 1998 are allowed and the writs issued by the High Court in the petition filed by the respondents are re-called. Civil Appeals Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of 1998 are dismissed with the observations that the appellants in these cases, whose cases are claimed to be pending before the authorities, are free to pursue the same in accordance with the law. There will he no order as to cost.