- CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- 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 tax-payer. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in the aforesaid writ petition are drawing increments in BS.19 without any justification 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 lac per month whereas the total member of the Govt.. Officials extracting the money from Govt.
Exchequer more than 200. He summed-up his arguments that appellant is tax-payer, 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 filed 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 tax-payer, therefore, he is aggrieved person therefore, writ petitions maintainable. We are of the view that the contention of appellant's counsel has no force. It is settled proposition of law that a tax-payer cannot maintain a petition . Probono publico. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:7 (PLD 1972 Lahore. 546) "Shahjehan Begum's case", (PLD 1973 Lah. 500) "Anjuman-a-Arain Bhera's case.
It is admitted fact that appellant have 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 probono publico and is not an aggrieved person. We are fortified by the following judgments:-- (1987 MLD 2457) "Abdul Haleem's case"
(1987 M.L.D. 464) "Naraindas and others' case"
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 mis-appropriated Govt. Land public exchequer is not an aggrieved person and not entitled to maintain petition as 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 Addl. A.G. 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 (Judi.) of this Court.