' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal by Pakistan Lawyers' Forum has arisen from the order, dated 9-12-1999 passed by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's writ petition challenging Constitutional validity of the Military take-over on 12-10-1999 was adjourned to await result of similar cases pending before this Court.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is three-fold. First, that the rule of propriety on which the impugned order is based neither finds mention in the case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 437) nor was laid down by this Court in any other case.
Secondly, refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the Full Bench amounts to refusing 'access to justice' which is a guaranteed fundamental right. Thirdly, this Court cannot as a matter of course, entertain a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and allow a party to bypass the High Court.
3. The petitioner was heard at length and the case-law viz Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1975 SC 66 at pages 79, 85 and 95), Farooq Ahmed Siddiqi v. The Province of Sindh and others (1994 SCM R 2111 at page 2114), Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, Member Provincial Assembly, N.-W.F.P. And another (PLD 1995 SC 66 at page 148), Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif v. The State (1997 SCM R 1361), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) and Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafaz Dastoor v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1263 at pages 1299, 1300, 1301) cited by him was examined.
4. At the outset Mr. A.K. Dogar, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of the petition, was asked to explain the legal status of the petitioner. He submitted that the registration of the Pakistan Lawyers' Forum was in the offing. It was pointed out to him that in that eventuality the petitioner was bereft of locus standi to file the writ petition being not a juristic person. Faced with this position he submitted that he may be substituted for the petitioner. The submission has been made in good spirit, therefore, it is ordered that his name be substituted for the petitioner with the observation that it shall not serve as a precedent.
5. The contention vehemently raised by the petitioner with regard to the 'principle of propriety' has not impressed us. Numerous Constitution petitions challenging the Military take-over were filed in this Court which have already been fixed for hearing. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, though prior in point of time, is identical in substance to those petitions. It is true that in the case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, cited above, this Court had not made any observation in regard to stay of identical writ petitions filed in the High Court but it is a matter of common knowledge that all such petitions were stayed by the respective High Courts pending disposal of the Constitution Petition filed in this Court. The impugned Order is thus, neither unprecedented nor exceptionable.
6. Adverting to the second facet of the grievance we find that the Full Bench seized of the matter has not refused to exercise jurisdiction and has only stayed the writ' petition till disposal of somewhat identical Constitutional Petitions pending in this Court. It is scarcely necessary to mention that stay of proceedings cannot be equated with abdication of jurisdiction. In any event the matter being procedural, the Full Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, was certainly competent to regulate its own procedure.
7. The controversy emanating from third aspect of the grievance was set at rest in the case of Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafaz-e-Dastoor v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1263) in these terms:-- "Since we have already entertained the above Constitution Petition and have heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to hold that it would foster democratic norms if we were to render authoritative pronouncement as to the scope and import of above Article 63-A."
8. The observations made in Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 SC 66) in regard to exercise of concurrent jurisdiction are not attracted in view of the peculiar nature of the petitioner's writ petition and the Constitution petitions pending in this Court and the fact that many Constitution petitions have already been entertained by this Court and fixed for hearing.
9. While concluding his lengthy arguments, the petitioner informed us that he had also filed a Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in this Court but submitted that he would pursue the petition pending in the Lahore High Court therefore the Lahore High Court may be directed to hear his petition and conclude the same within two weeks. The request is declined as we are not inclined to revive the writ petition in question. As regards the Constitution Petition No,7 of 2000 filed by the Pakistan Lawyers' Forum in this Court it may be observed that notices in the Constitution Petitions, challenging the Military take-over, filed earlier have already been issued, therefore, the said Constitution Petition cannot be clubbed with those petitions. Besides, tagging of the said petition with the Constitution Petitions already fixed for hearing will not only delay the disposal of those petitions but also militate against the commitment of this Court to ensure quick disposal of cases and banish delay from the Courts.
10. Following the observation of the Full Bench of this Court comprising 7 Judges presided over by Ajmal Mian, C.J., of which one of us (Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J.) was also a member in Constitution Petitions Nos.10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of 1998 Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 57) to the effect: "If any other petition apart from these petitions has been filed would wait the result of the above petitions". We direct that Constitution Petition No,7 of 2000 would await the result of Constitution Petitions Nos.b2 of 1999, 63 of 1999, 66 of 1999, 3 of 2000, 64 of 1999, 53 of 1999 and 57 of 1999 fixed for hearing on day to day basis commencing 1st March, 2000.
11. Resultantly, the leave prayed for is declined and the .