1. ' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Air Commodore Muhammad Afzal was elected President of Pakistan Amateur Basketball Federation. Brig. Retd. Rashid Ali Malik announced parallel body; the petitioner being aggrieved, filed application before respondent No,1 to stop parallel organization to function and hold tournament of National Championship on 20-2-2000.
2. Respondent No,1 did not decide the same the petitioner being aggrieved filed W.P. No,2462 of 2000 which was disposed of vide order, dated 6-2-2000 and respondent No,1 was directed to decide the application of the petitioner within two days, after receiving the order of this Court, in accordance with law. Respondent No,1 forwarded the application of petitioner to respondent No,2, who decided the same vide order, dated 26-2-2000 in the following terms:-- "The Committee further finds it necessary that in order to resolve the controversy in the PABBF, fresh election is held in accordance with the Constitution of the PABBF after taking remedial steps deemed necessary to further the spirit of the Constitution by allowing every existing affiliated unit of the Federation to participate in the election. The election held shall be to the satisfaction of Pakistan Olympic Association for according recognition to the elected body. In the meantime, none of the contesting groups shall pursue any Basketball activity at national level in the name of Pakistan Amateur Basketball Federation until such time the dispute is resolved."
3. ' Respondent No,1 announced the Election Schedule on 8-4-2000 to be held on 8-5-2000. The Election was not held on 8-5-2000 on account of dispute arose between Multan and Peshawar Units. Respondent No,1 announced schedule for fresh election to be held on 22-6-2000 vide letter, dated 12-6-2000. The petitioner filed writ petition on the ground that rival group of the petitioner is very powerful having connection in present Military Government and is bringing severe pressure to bear upon the member units to vote for its candidates. The petitioner has filed present writ petition with the following prayer:-- "that respondent No,1 may be directed to hold the elections of the Federation through Secret Ballot so that the direction of the Humble Court and recommendations of the respondent No,2 may be implemented in letter and spirit."
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice and fair play, direction may be issued to respondent No,1 to hold election through secret ballot.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy--
(i) petitioner filed W.P. No,2462 of 2000 which was disposed of on the same day and respondent No,1 was directed to decide the application of petitioner within two days, after receiving the order of this Court, in accordance with law;
(ii) respondent No,1 referred the matter to respondent No,2 who decided the same on 26-2-2000 and recommended that fresh election may be held in accordance with constitution of PABBF after taking remedial steps deem necessary to further spirit of the Constitution by allowing; (HU respondent No,1 announced the schedule for election vide letter, dated 8-4-2000 to be held on 8-5-2000. Election could not be held on account of dispute between two units Peshawar and Multan; fresh election schedule was announced vide letter, dated 12-6-2000 to be held on 22-6- 2000.
5. ' The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately when respondent No,1 announced the election on 8-4-2000 to be held on 8-5-2000 and final schedule was also announced by respondent No,1 on 12-6-2000 to be held on 22-6-2000 but the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of lathes. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by judgment of Humble Supreme Court (PLD 1997 SC 304) "Khiali Khan's case". The petitioner did not approach this Court well in time, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in his favor as per principle laid down in Kh. Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1988 Lah. 725) and (PLD 1989 SC 166) Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Saif Ullah. The petitioner did not attach any Rules of respondents or challenged the vires of any Rules of respondents, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the law laid down in Akhtar Mir's case (1984. SCMR 433). The only grievance raised by petitioner that direction may be issued to respondents to hold election through secret ballot papers, has no force as principle laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi's case (PLD 1988 Lah. 501) and observed as under:--- "Petitioner grievance is only with respect to the mode of polling of raise of hands. The impugned mode is not in any manner violate of Article 32 of Constitution because despite the change in the mode of polling, elections are being held to give representation to the peasants, workers and women."
6. ' It is further observed as under:--- "The elections in respect whereof the grievance has been agitated by the petitioner are admittedly being held under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and not under the Constitution."
7. Once the election schedule has been announced then, writ petition is not maintainable during the intermediate stage till the election is finalized as per law laid down in Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javed Hashmi (PLD 1989 SC 396).
8. ' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternate remedy to approach respondent No,1 for redressed of his grievance. The petitioner did not allege any allegation of mala fide against respondents; therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the principle laid down in Saeed Nawaz case (PLD 1981 Lah. 371). It is also settled proposition of law that general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eye of law as the principle laid down in Ahmed Saeed Khan's case PLD 1974 SC 151. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to redress the grievance of F citizen as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. The humble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case (PLD 1995 SC 530). In case the petitioner approaches respondent No,1, then he shall redress the grievance of petitioner in accordance with law.
9. ' Disposed of with the aforesaid observation.