1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- Office was directed to send notice to the respondents but the respondents inspite of the notice did not enter appearance on 10.10.2000 and the interim order passed in C.M.
2. No. 1/2000 was confirmed on the said date. Office sent notice to the parties on 17.10.2000 for 31.10.2000 inspite of notice nobody entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1. Therefore, case is decided ex parte against respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioners submitted his admission form as regular candidate through Government F.C. College, Lahore to appear in the intermediate Part-11 Annual Examination, 1999. Respondent No. 2 informed the Controller of examination of the respondent No. 1 on the ground of shortage of lectures along with other candidates of his College namely Mazhar Ali, Nazir Ahmad, H. Usman Sarwar, Farrukh Mansha, Rehan Farid Mustafa, M. Faruq Mubarik, Zeeshan Faruq, Ammar Afzal and Tahir Malik.
3. Therefore, petitioners withheld the roll numbers of all the aforesaid candidates including the petitioners. Petitioners filed suit for declaration with mandatory injunction before Civil Judge First Class along with application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for issuance of roll number slips to the petitioners. Learned Civil Judge directed the petitioners to issue roll number slips to the petitioners forthwith. Petitioners submitted written statement and mentioned the aforesaid reasons withholding roll number slips of respondent No. 1 on account of shortage of lectures. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Trial Court filed appeal before the Addl.
4. District Judge on 9.7.1999. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal respondent No. 1 filed application u/S. 15,1, CPC before the learned District Judge for the declaration of his result card and issuance of the result card. Learned Addl. District Judge directed the petitioners provisionally result card be issued to respondent No. 1 subject to all just exceptions. Petitioners did not issue provisional result card to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed contempt application before the Addl. District Judge who issue notice to the petitioners. Petitioners submitted reply of the contempt application.
5. Learned Addl. District Judge instead of dismissing the contempt application issued show- cause notice to the .Petitioners vide impugned order dated 18.4.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners did not issue provisional result card to respondent No. 1 on the basis of the phrase used by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order of learned Addl. District Judge subject to all just exceptions. He further submits that word just all exceptions means that the consent was given on the condition that the defendant would be entitled to take such plea as may be available to him in law. In support of his contention he relied upon Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Irshad Ahmad (PLD 1982 S.C. 282). He further submits .That the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court granted total relief to respondent No. 1 in the garb of interim relief which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon 1997 SGMR 1508 (Muhammad Zaman Khan's case). He further submits that the impugned order did not provide express direction to the petitioners to issue provisional result card to respondent No. 1 in presence of the phrase used by the learned Addl. District Judge "just all exceptions". Therefore, petitioners did not commit any contempt of Court. In support of his contentions he relied upon PLD 1990 S.C. 787 (Qadeer Ahmad's case). He further submits that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards Act, 1976. He further submits that roll number of one Tahir Malik was also withheld by the petitioners who filed W.P. No. 7749/1999 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.5.1999. Tahir Malik being aggrieved filed Intra Court Appeal No. 382/1999 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 12.5.1999. Similarly, Imran Chaudhery filed Writ Petition No.7493/1999 which was dismissed by this Court and Intra Court Appeal tiled by him was also dismissed. Hassan Awais also tiled W.P. No. 745/1999 which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these facts are mentioned in reply of the contempt petition in para 3 but the learned Addl. District Judge passed the impugned order without adverting to the reply of the petitioners. Even the case relied by the learned Addl. District Judge 2000 CLC 387 (Said Muhammad Vs. Sultan Ahmad) wherein the relevant observation was not considered in true prospects by the learned Addl. District Judge. This aspect of the case was not adverted to by the Courts below. Following dictum laid down in the case referred to above it is held that the Civil Judge lacks the jurisdiction to try the contempt petition. He is directed to make reference to the High Court. Learned Addl. District Judge instead of sent reference to this Court passed the impugned order and directed the petitioners to appear before him.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is settled proposition of law that total relief cannot be granted in the garb of interim relief as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Farid Ahmad's case (1968 SCMR 88) and Muhammad Zaman Khan's case (1997 SCMR 1508). It is also settled proposition of law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the super-structure shall fall on the ground automatically as per principle laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:- PLD 1958 S.C. 104, Yousaf All's case; PLD 1982 Lahore 1, Crescent Sugar Mill's case.
7. It is also admitted fact that other candidates whose cases are exactly similar with the case of the petitioner filed writ petitions which were dismissed in limine and intra Court appeals filed by the candidates were also dismissed. All these facts are mentioned in reply of the contempt petition in para 3 but the learned Addl. District Judge passed the order without adverting to the reply of the petition. This fact brings the case in the area that the learned Addl. District Judge did not apply his mind and decided the case in mechanical manner which is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mollah Ejahar Ali's case (PLD 1970 S.C. 173). After addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act even public functionaries are duty bound to redress the grievance of the citizen with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1998 SCMR 2268 (M/s. Airport Support Services' case). It is also settled proposition of law that a Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe and failure of the counsel to properly advised is not a complete excuse in the matter as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case (PLD 1969 S.C. 278) and Mst. Salma Ifroze's case (PLD 1992 S.C. 263). It is also settled proposition of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the Province by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution. The learned Addl. District Judge passed the order in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments, and initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioners without adverting to the meaning of the words "just all exceptions" which do not contain express directions to the petitioners to issue provisional result card to respondent No. 1 as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Qadeer Ahmad's case (PLD 1990 S.C. 787). The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by virtue of Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board Act, 1976 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Rafiq's case (1983 SCMR 1024).
8. In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 18.4.2000 is set aside and the contempt proceedings initiated by the Addl. District Judge are also quashed. The learned Addl. District Judge shall decide the appeal of the petitioners in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation of this Court.