DEEDAR HASSAIN SHAH, CJ---This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 filed by Ibadat Foundation and Executive Council, Hamdard University Islamabad Campus calls into question an order dated 14-2-2000 passed by the respondent No.1 in his capacity as Chancellor of respondent No. 2. The prayers made in the petition read as under:--
(a) The order passed on 14-2-2000 by respondent No.1 be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal affect, and its abbreviation be suspended. The respondent be restrained from acting upon the order dated 14-2-2000.
(b) Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.
2. Facts forming background of this litigation, as stated in the petition, are that the respondent No.2 viz. Hamdard University, a statutory body, established under the Hamdard, University Act, 1991 (Sindh Act No. VI of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")'having its principal campus at Madinatul Hikmat, Karachi, on 1-6-1998, entered into an agreement with the petitioner No.1 viz. Ibadat Foundation to establish its Campus at Islamabad. Such agreement was with the prior approval of such proposal by the Board of Governors of respondent No.2 in their 10th meeting held on 24-2-1998. Clause 3 of this agreement provided that parties will provide equity in the ratio of 51 % by respondent No.2 and 496 by petitioner No.1 for development of Islamabad Campus while clause 15 of the agreement provided that in case of any dispute matter would be referred to arbitration committee constituted by the Chancellor of respondent.No.2 and Chairman of petitioner No.1.
3, After the said demise of the then Chancellor of the respondent No.2 Hakeem Saied on 17-10-1998; the respondent No.1 (Mr. Justice (R) Ajmal Mian) was notified as Chancellor of the University on 15- 2-1999. But before that on 9-2-1999 the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 entered into: a second agreement, superseding the first one, which provided for payment of 15 % of the gross revenue collected from Islamabad Campus by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2. In the 13th meeting of the Board of Governors of respondent No.2 held on 6-3-1999 a follow up of a- 12th meeting was presented and as Item No. 6-C of the Agenda the contract between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 was concluded. Up to that time relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Was continuing in a smooth manner. However, on induction of respondent No.1 as the Chancellor of respondent No.2 problems started creeping up due to the wrongful approach of respondent No.1 regarding his functions as the Chancellor. He purportedly exercising his power under section 9.1 of the Act appointed Dr. Engineer Jamil Ahmed Khan, Chairman; Pakistan Engineering Council to visit Hamdard University, Islamabad and Faisalabad Campus to inquire into the working of these campuses and the appointment of the teaching staff. Respondent No.1 further asked him to suggest steps which could be taken to improve the working of the said compuses and to bring them in conformity with the Act, rules and the, agreement. On such assignment entrusted to Dr. Jamil Ahmed Khan, he carried out his visitation and submitted report on 18-9-1990.
On receipt of report the respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice to the petitioners on 4-10-1999 which was replied by them inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and emphasizing that the patties were governed by the second agreement and not the first one.
Thereafter further proceedings were conducted by the respondent No.1 on various dates and on conclusion of such proceedings, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order.
4. On service of notice of this petition to the respondents, the Registrar of respondent No.2 Dr. M, Aijaz Naim filed his counter-affidavit in reply to the assertions made in petition and the injunction application wherein he challenged the maintainability of the petitioner on the grounds that the petition involves enforcement of contractual obligations and determination of disputed questions of fact which exercise could not be undertaken in, a writ petition. The order of respondent No.1 dated 14-2-2000 has been passed by him in exercise of his powers under the Act and the Statute framed thereunder and in the best interest of the University and its students and any interference in writ may result irreparable adverse consequences for the institution. In his parawise reply to the petition the Registrar of respondent No.2 stated that only the first agreement dated 1-6-1998 was validly executed between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 while the second agreement dated 9-2-1999 was illegal and void, the same was never rectified or unanimously approved by the Board of Governors in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. With reference to this he gave detailed facts that how in glaring violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act the petitioner No. 1 attempted to manage the second agreement which was to the great prejudice of the respondent No.2. In reply to allegations made in various paragraphs of the petition to Registrar stated that under section 8.5 of the Act the respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and such powers were legally and validly exercised by him. Alongwith hiscounter---affidavit the Registrar of respondent No.2 also placed on record copies of several documents to fortify his stand.
5. In reply to the above allegations made in the counter-affidavit, one Major (R) Muhammad Arshad filed his affidavit-in-rejoinder on behalf of the petitioners wherein he reiterated the assertions made in the petition and in reply to the preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petition stated that through this petition the petitioners are not seeking either enforcement of any contractual obligation or adjudication of any factual controversy hence the petition is maintainable.
6. On 15-3-2000 when this petition was taken up for Katcha Peshi it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that on the next date of hearing this petition will be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of Katcha Peshi.
7. We have, therefore, heard Mr. Muhammad Akram Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel for the respondents at length.
8. Mr. Akram Shaikh at the outset of his arguments candidly stated that through this petition neither the petitioners are seeking adjudication of any disputed question of fact nor they wish to enforce any contractual obligations arising out of any agreement between the parties as invocation of writ jurisdiction for this purpose would not be justified, but through this petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 on the sole ground that under the relevant statute (Sindh Act VI of 1992) respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to pass such order thereby unilaterally cancelling/quashing the second agreement between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No .2. With reference to his contention, the learned counsel referred and read before us sections 8.1, 8.5, 9.1 and 9.2 of the Act. He submitted that under section 8.5 Chancellor can only exercise his powers in respect of proceedings of any "authority" or orders of any "officer" if the same were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the statute, the regulation or the rules, while the Board of Governors was not an authority under the respondent No.1 and therefore annulment of any action of the Board of Governors of respondent No.2 was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. With reference to sections 9.1 and 9.2 also the learned counsel advanced similar arguments that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to have specified the conditions as contained in the operative part of the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order may be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
9. Mr. Akram Shaikh further submitted that if respondent No.1 was anxious to enforce the first agreement dated 1-6-1998 then the proper course available to him was to refer the matter for arbitration in terms of clause 15 of the said agreement. About the merits of the impugned order, the learned counsel also submitted that as a consequence of impugned order future of more than one thousand and six hundred students at the Hamadard University Islamabad Campus is at stake and to save them from disaster, impugned order needs to be set aside. Lastly the learned counsel referred to Article 137 of the Constitution and contended that it was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to pass an order affecting the interest of the petitioners working at Islamabad i.e. Outside the Sindh Province as the respondent No.2 has been established under a Provincial Statute viz. Act No. VI of 1992 and therefore, the respondent No.1 as Chancellor of respondent No. 2 cannot exercise his jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits of Sindh Province.
10. Controverting the above submissions Mr. S.M. Zafar referred to sections 3.2, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, 8.1, 8.5, 9.1, 9.2 and 11.1 of the Act to show that the Board of Governors is one of the authority of the university covered by section 11.1 of the Act, and therefore, under section 8.5 of the Act the Chancellor had the jurisdiction that in case he was not satisfied with any proceedings of the Board of Governors then he could annul such proceedings, and in the instant case before taking any such action not only the respondent No.1 called upon the Board to show cause about the proceedings of its 13th meeting but even he afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so that in case action taken against the Board of Governors causes any prejudice to the interest of the petitioners, they may not have any cause of grievance against such action on the pretext of denial of an opportunity of hearing before such action.
11. Mr. S.M. Zafar further submitted that the material placed on record would show that proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1 on receipt of complaint dated 1-7-1999 made by one Iqrar A.I, intimating him about the mismanagement and commercialised approach of the petitioners. After receipt of such complaint, exercising his powers under section 9.1 of the Act and also in conformity with clause 15 of the second agreement dated 9-2-1999 respondent No.1 appointed Dr. Engineer Jamil Ahmed Khan for visitation and inquiry, who after his visitation at the petitioner's Campus at Islamabad on. I-9-1999 submitted his detailed report dated 18-9-1999 mentioning serious financial, administrative and academic violations and also indicating disloyalty of the petitioners towards respondent No.2. Such report of the visitor has not been disputed challenged by the petitioners before any forum till today, though suck remedy was available to the petitioners. In this context learned counsel referred to the cases reported as 1987 All England Reports 834 and 1988 All England Reports 1004.
12. In the first case it was held that the jurisdiction of an university visitor who holds such positions a sole judge of the internal or domestic laws of the university, was exclusive and not concurrent with the Court's jurisdiction. Visitors' jurisdiction include: the interpretation and enforcement not only of such laws themselves but also, of internal powers and discretions derived from them and for this purpose he enjoys exclusive jurisdiction.
13. In the other case also it was held that in the matters relating to the internal laws of the college jurisdiction of a university /college visitor on the relevant subject was exclusive.
14. With reference to the report of the visitor learned counsel also submitted that in this report with specific instances serious financial irregularities and mismanagement of fund has been attributed to the petitioners but no denial of such report has come from the petitioner side and in such circumstances exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199, which is primarily meant for proper dispensation of justice, would not be justified as it will perpetuate injustice and may result in protecting the ill-gotten gains of the petitioners. Mr. S.M. Zafar also emphasized that the dispute brought before this Court relates to the internal affairs of the university and in such circumstances the superior Courts have always been reluctant in exercising their writ jurisdiction as it may result interference in the proper administration of the institution.
15. Referring to clause 15 of the second agreement dated 9-2-2000 the learned counsel contended that under this clause the Chancellor had full authority to revoke the agreement after an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which was admittedly afforded to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order -and on this ground too the order impugned in this petition is fully justified and within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. Adverting to the impugned order and its operative parts "A" and "B" the learned counsel contended that the same has been totally misunderstood by the petitioners. The language used in the order clearly indicates that option was given to the petitioners for acceptance of "A" part of the order and in case of their refusal, in part "B" of the order further follow up remedy has been highlighted for the benefit of respondent No.2 which even otherwise is the duty of respondent No. I. Thus, the impugned order is just, equitable and fair and passing of such order was inveitable to save the interest of respondent No.2.
16. During the course of his arguments Mr. S.M. Zafar also placed on record copy of resolution passed in the sixteenth meeting of the Board of Governors held on 20-3-2000 and submitted that after passing of this resolution virtually this petition has become infructuous and passing of any order favourable to the petitioners will be an exercise in futility.
17. Reverting to the second agreement dated 9-2-2000 the learned counsel also contended that it is an admitted position that such agreement was executed between the parties without approval or authorization of Board of Governors and in violations of the mandatory requirements of the Act, and therefore, the second agreement is a nullity.
18. In the end Mr: S.M. Zafar referred to certain paragraphs of the petition and the affidavit-in- rejoinder filed from the petitioners side and contended that respondent No.1 is a person 'who was Chief Justice of the apex Court in the recent past but the language used against -him in these paragraphs is not only objectionable but also defamatory in nature, and therefore, the petitioners be directed to expunge such objectionable material from .The petition and the affidavit-in- rejoinder. In this context he further contended that the judgments delivered by the respondent No.1 in his capacity as a Judge of High Court and the Supreme Court reflect about his high caliber, honesty, integrity and impartiality, and therefore, it was not befitting for the petitioners to have dragged him to this litigation in such an indecent manner.
19. Mr. Akram Shaikh replying to the last contention of Mr. S.M. Zafar submitted that the petitioners have taken utmost care in using proper and legal language in their petition with reference to their grievances against the respondent No.1 and there is no such objectionable or defamatory language used against the respondent No. I which may justify such arguments. The learned counsel also expressed his high respect for the respondent No.1 as a retired Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan. Replying to the contentions of Mr. S.M. Zafar with reference to the powers of visitation and action in consequence thereof and the case-law referred by the learned counsel for respondents in this context. Mr. Akram Shaikh submitted that the report of the visitor had been strongly disputed by the petitioners, however, this issue has not been agitated in the present petition and no relief has been sought in its regard for the reasons that it would involve inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. Mr. Akram Shaikh referring on the case law submitted that air order of the visitor of University is open to question in writ jurisdcition what to speak of the order of the respondent No.1 which is patently without jurisdcition.
20. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record so also the case-law referred by them.
21. In the present petition the only crucial point for consideration before us is whether the respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14-2-2000. In order to appreciate respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties on this point, it will be proper to reproduce here the provisions of law referred and relied by them in its context: Establishment and incorporation of the University3.3.1 ...............
3.2 The University shall be a body corporate by the name of the Hamdard University having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, among others, to acquire, hold and dispose of any property vesting in it and shall by the said name, sue and be sued.
Powers and functions of the University5.The University shall be an autonomous body and shall have the powers-- 5.1. ............... 5.2 to admit and examine students and to confer or award degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions on and to persons, who have passed its examinations under prescribed conditions; 5.3 to affiliate itself or associate with other institutions and establish faculties and the teaching departments to discharge its function and responsibilities for the betterment of education; Officers of the University 6.The following shall be the officers of the University: 6.1 ............... 6.2 the Chancellor; The Chancellor 8. 8.1 The Chancellor shall be a person of eminence, known for his contribution in the field of knowledge or service to society and appreciated for his high moral and intellectual caliber: 8.2 ............... 8.3 ............... 8.4 ............... 8.5 8.5 If the Chancellor is satisfied that the proceedings of any authority or orders of any officer are not in r accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Regulations, or the Rules, he may, after calling upon such Authority or officer to show cause why such proceedings should - - not be annulled, by order in writing, annul such proceedings or orders.
Visitation 9.9 The Chancellor may cause a visitation or inquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the University and appoint such person or persons he may deem fit for the purpose. 9.2 The Chancellor shall, on receipt of a report under subsection (1), issue such directions as he thinks fit and the Vice-Chancellor will comply with such directions.
Authorities 11.The following shall be the Authorities of the University:--- 11.1.The Board of Governors; 11.2 ............... 11.3 ............... 11.4 ............... 11.5 ...............
11.6 ............... 11.7 ............... 11.8 ...............
22. From the bare reading of above-quoted sections of the Act, it will be seen that section 3.2 describes the status of the university as 'x body corporate, section 5.2 deals with the powers of the University to admit and examine the students and confer or award degrees, diploma, certificates and other distinctions, section 5.3 empowers the University to affiliate or associate itself with other institutions, and establish faculty and teaching departments in discharge of its functions and responsibilities for the betterment of the education section 6.2 denotes Chancellor as one of the officers of the University; section 8.1 signifies the qualifications of the Chancellor; Section 8.5 refers to the powers of the Chancellor that in case the Chancellor is satisfied that any proceedings of the authority or orders of any officer are not in accordance with provisions of Act, the statute, regulations or the rules, then after calling such authority or d1ftcer to show--cause that why such proceedings or order should not be annulled, by an order in writing, he can annul such proceedings or orders. Section 9.1 of the Act deals with visitation and empowers the Chancellor to cause visitiation or inquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the university and appoint any person or persons for this purpose, section 9.2 of the Act authorizes the Chancellor that on receipt of report of visitation or inquiry, issue directions to the Vice-Chancellor for compliance; section 11.1 denotes the Board of Governors as one of the authority in the University set---up.
23. Reverting to the question of jurisdiction of the Chancellor, it will be seen that from the above provisions of the Act, it is amply clear that the respondent No.1 being Chancellor of the respondent No.2, had the jurisdiction under section 8.5 of the Act to annul any proceedings of the Board of Governors, being one, of the authority of the University under section 11.1 of the Act. In view of the above, contention of Mr. Akram Shaikh that the respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to pass an order in the terms as specified in the impugned order dated 14-2-2000, has no force.
24. Resolving the question of jurisdiction from another angle, clause 15 of the agreement dated 9- 2-1999 is relevant. The same is, therefore, reproduced as tinder: "15. To safeguard the interest of students studying at Islamabad Campus, it is agreed between the 2 parties that this agreement shall I be irrevocable. However, as provided in clause 9(1) of the Act of the University: The Chancellor may cause a visitation or inquiry to be made in respect of any matter, connected with the affairs of the University, (In this case Hamdard University Islamabad Campus) and appoint such person or persons as may deem fit for the purpose: Provided further that as a result of visitation, if the Chancellor is not satisfied with the academic and administrative functioning of Islamabad Campus, he may revoke the agreement after providing an opportunity to IBADAT Foundation to defend itself."
25. From the bare reading of this clause, it is evident that under this clause of the agreement, the petitioners themselves have agreed and empowered the Chancellor to cause a visitation or inquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the University (HUIC) and for this purpose, he can appoint any person or persons as deemed fit by him and further in case the Chancellor is not satisfied with the academic and administrative working of the Islamabad Campus as a result of such visitation made under his directive, then he can revoke agreement after providing an opportunity to the petitioner No.1 to defend itself. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the respondent No.1 exercised such powers by appointing Dr. Engineer Jamil Ahmed Khan for the purpose of visitation of Islamabad Campus who in response to that made necessary visitation and inquiry and submitted his report on 18-9-1999, which has been explicitly reproduced in para. 4 of the impugned order. It has not been disputed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the receipt of visitation report notice to show-cause was issued to the petitioner No.1 and after receipt of their reply and due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.1 on various dates the impugned order was passed. Thus, it is clear that on the basis of second agreement dated 9-2-1999 also the passing of the impugned order was well within the jurisdiction' of the respondent No.1 and the petitioners are legally estopped from challenging his jurisdiction.
26. Examining the question of territorial jurisdiction as raised by Mr. Akram Shaikh, it may be observed that Sindh Act No. VI of 1992, under which the respondent. No.2 has been established as a body corporate, does not limit its jurisdiction as regard to the establishment of its Campus any-- where outside the Province of Sindh. Admittedly the petitioner No.1 is managing the affairs of Islamabad Campus of respondent No.2 in terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 and under the control of respondent No. 2, therefore the respondent No.1 being Chancellor of the University had the jurisdiction to exercise his powers in the matter.
Thus, this contention of Mr. Akram Shaikh has also no force.
27. Coming to the merits of the impugned order; it will be useful to reproduce here the operative part of the order which is in two parts "A" and "B", the same is as under:-- "A"
(i) For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the Second Agreement dated 9-2-1999 has not been competently entered into and has not been ratified by the BOG in accordance with law. In consequence thereof, the above First Agreement dated 1-6-1998 holds the field.
(ii) I also quash the act of placement of a copy of the Second Agreement dated 9-2-1999 in the working papers of BOG 13th Meeting as a follow-up report of BOG 12th Meeting for the reasons already recorded hereinabove, under section 8.5 of the Act and declare that the same cannot be treated as a part of the proceedings of the BOG, 13th Meeting held on 6th March, 1999 and is of no legal consequence.
(iii) The Statutes, which were approved by the BOG in its 11th Meeting held on 23-6-1998 and assented to by the then Chancellor without any additions, hold the field and the University are obliged to follow the same.
(iv) I direct the Vice-Chancellor to cause the constitution of various committees envisaged by the Statutes within a period of seven (7) days from the receipt of a copy of this order, except that the nomination by the BOG of three members on the Executive Council of HUIC in terms of clause 2.1(b), thereof (if not already done), is to be made in the first meeting of the BOG after receipt of this order but in any case not later than thirty (30) days thereof.
(v) Messrs A.F. Ferguson, Chartered Accountants, will be requested by the Vice-Chancellor to examine the accounts books and other relevant record of HUIC for the period from 1-2-1998 to date, to ascertain the amount/assets, which would have remained with HUIC, if clause 3 of the First Agreement dated 1-6-1998 would have been adhered to, and no amount for unjustifiable reason would have been spent and/or withdrawn and/or diverted to any purpose other than HUIC. Upon ascertainment of such amounts/assets, IF would deposit the difference, if any, in the account of HUIC, within two (2) months of such ascertainment. After such deposit by IF, the University would refund the amount received by it as 15 % of the gross revenue under the alleged Second Agreement dated 9-2-1999 to HUIC.
(vi) Upon receipt of the above amounts from IF and the University referred to hereinabove in para. (v), the efforts .Shall be made to purchase a suitable land and/or building in Islamabad for the establishment of a permanent Campus having good facilities for the students.
(vii) The Selection Committee to be constituted or cause to be constituted as per statutes, for HUIC by the Vice-Chancellor, shall review the appointments already made, within a period of three (3) months, in order to ascertain, whether the same are made on merits and would take corrective action/actions, if any, required.
(viii)The Vice-Chancellor shall set up a separate call for campuses outside Karachi and shall evolve a. Mechanism, which shall ensure the compliance of the terms of the First Agreement dated 1-6-1998 and the statutes/regulations/rules.
"B"
(i) The First Agreement for the reasons recorded inter alia hereinabove min para. 20 and without prejudice to the foregoing, the alleged Second Agreement for the reasons mentioned hereinabove in para.21, are liable to be terminated and they shall stand terminated on receipt of this order and that the name of Hamdard University shall not be used in any form by IF, subject to proviso that the students, who have already been enrolled with HUIC by the date of termination of above agreements, whose list will be obtained by the Vice-Chancellor, would be entitled to continue to use their studies with IF as per Hamdard University's requirements and would be entitled to receive degrees of Hamdard University, if they pass the examinations according to the relevant statutes/regulations/rules .
(ii) The University would make efforts to open a Campus at Islamabad its own or in collaboration with any society or organization having sound reputation of rendering services in educational field without any commercial motivation within a reasonable period. The above enrolled students at HUIC would have option either to continue their studies with IF or to switch over to Hamdard University's newly-proposed compus on payment of prescribed fees and other charges for the relevant semesters.
(iii) The Vice-Chancellor shall file a suit in a competent Court of law for appropriate reliefs including for accounts against IF on the basis of the First Agreement dated 1-6-1998- in terms thereof, for the recovery of the University's 51 % share - in the assets of HUIC, which would have been accumulated up-to the date of termination of the above agreement, if IF had not spent/withdrawn/diverted the funds for any reason/purpose not admissible under the said agreement/statutes. In the proposed suit, .An application for appointment of an administrator or a receiver of HUIC may also be filed, if ~o advised by the lawyer to be engaged.
(iv) The Vice-Chancellor shall-take such further action/actions, which will ensure the compliance of this order and will protect the interest of the University and students.
28. From the language of the order as reproduced above, it seems that the contention of Mr. S.M.
Zafar that through this order basically a proposal/offer for the settlement of dispute of an educational institution was extended to the petitioners, appears to be well-founded and justified. In case the respondent No.1 had intention to take any unilateral decision in. The matter, then he might not have invited the petitioners for settlement of dispute and extended the option for the acceptance or otherwise of operative part "A" of the impugned order to them. After perusal of the impugned order, we feel ourselves persuaded to observe that in the facts and circumstances the impugned order is not only just, equitable and fair but also interest of the students already studying at Hamdard University, Islamabad Campus has been properly safe Warded. Besides, the same relates to the internal affairs of an educational institution and thus in the given circumstances, call for no interference in writ jurisdiction.
29. Referring to the contention of Mr. S.M. Zafar about the alleged use of some indecent language against the respondent No.1 , it maybe observed that such allegations have been attributed to the respondent No.1 in his capacity as Chancellor of the respondent No.2. In any case, if the respondent No.1 feels himself aggrieved, it will be open for him to seek his redress in this regard before the proper forum.
30. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.