This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, dated 26-4-2000 whereby Writ Petition No.7144 of 2000 filed by appellant with the grievance that respondents Nos.5 to 8 in the said writ petition, are drawing increments in BS-19 which they are not entitled, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that petitioner/appellant has not suffered any injury and is not aggrieved person.
2. Appellant's counsel submits that appellant is Chief Editor, National Service Gazette, Narowal and is taxpayer. Respondents Nos.5 to 8 in the aforesaid writ petition are drawing increments in BS-19 without any jurisdiction and in violation of Rules and Regulations of respondents; that respondents Nos.5 to 8 in the aforesaid writ petition extracting money from Government exchequer since 1994 till date almost Rs.300 per head which caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.6 lacs per month whereas the total member of the Government officials extracting the money from Government Exchequer more than 200. He summed up his arguments that appellant is taxpayer, therefore, he is aggrieved person but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without adverting to this aspect of case.
3. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The appellant failed to prove as to how he was aggrieved and petition found to be vague but the contention of appellant's counsel simply that he is taxpayer, therefore, he is aggrieved person, therefore, writ petition is maintainable. We are of the view that the contention of appellants' counsel has no force. It is settled proposition of law that a taxpayer cannot maintain a petition pro bono publico. In arriving told this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:------- Shahjehan Begum's case PLD 1972 Lah. 5460 and Anjuman-a-Arian Bhera's case PLD 1973 Lah. 500.
It is admitted fact that appellant has no personal interest of his own and having approached the Court on a bare plea of financial propriety for the funds of public exchequer is a pro bono publico and is not an aggrieved person. We are fortified by the following judgments: Abdul Haleem's case 1987 MLD 2457 and Naraindas and others' case 1987 MLD 464.
It is settled proposition of law that petition filed by private person in respect of matters relating to actions or omission by a person alleged to have misappropriated Government land public is not exchequer aggrieved person and not entitled to maintain petition has per law laid down in 1987 CLC 649. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant has made respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition, omitted the name of respondents Nos.5 to 8 in present appeal who are necessary and proper party, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as per law laid down in M. Ramiz-ul- Haq's case PLD 1992 SC 221. Appellant's counsel failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
4. However, in the interest of justice and fair play copy of the writ petition be sent to the Secretary Government of the Punjab Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore who is directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. In case the respondents are found guilty then he should initiate proceedings against them. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition and I.C.A. To the learned Additional Advocate-General Mr.. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhery who is directed to send the same to respondent No.4 for necessary action and compliance. Respondent No.4 is also directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.