1. SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.--- This Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner, wherein she has sought the following reliefs:--
(i) That the impugned order, dated 6-6-1998 passed in P.R.C. Appeal No.3 by two members of P.R.C.
2. Appellate Committee is without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
(ii) That the respondents Nos.1 and 2 be restrained from implementing the impugned order by way of cancelling the admission of the petitioner in first year M.B.,B.S., in Chandka Medical College, Larkana.
(iii) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The facts leading to filing of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner claiming herself to be the permanent resident of Ghari Yasin, District Shikarpur since her birth, applied for P.R.C. and Domicile Certificate to District Magistrate, Shikarpur, which were granted after proper and due inquiry. On the basis of such P.R.C. and the Domicile Certificate, she was admitted to first year M.B.,B.S. Class in the 1996-97 sessions in Chandka Medical College, Larkana and started attending classes. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Larkana Division for cancellation of the P.R.C. and Domicile Certificate issued to the petitioner. The Commissioner, Larkana Division after hearing the petitioner's counsel cancelled her P.R.C. vide order, dated 22-3- 1997. The order of the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the P.R.C. Appellate Committee, Karachi wherein the operation of the order of the Commissioner was suspended and the status quo was ordered to be maintained. Notwithstanding the above, Principal, Chandka Medical College, Larkana issued a notice to the petitioner, dated 29-3-1992 to show-cause as to why her admission should not be cancelled. The show-cause notice was replied to alongwith copy of the status quo order and the petitioner also approached this Court by way of a Constitutional Petition bearing No.898 of 1997. Subsequently, the P.R.C. Appellate Committee, Sindh, withdrew the status quo order. Constitutional Petition No.898 of 1997 was disposed of vide order, dated 10-12-1997 with the following observations:-- "In the circumstances and by consent, we dispose of these petitions requiring the P.R.C. Appellate Committee to decide the pending appeals of the petitioners within a month's time. If, however, such Committee upholds the cancellation of the P.R.Cs. and the Domicile Certificates, or any of the affectees as from that date would stand disqualified from continuing with the studies in relevant medical institutions but may pursue such other or further rights as may accrue to such petitioners."
4. Subsequently, vide order, dated 23-5-1998, the P.R.C. Appellate Committee dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which led her to file the above Constitutional petition.
5. We have heard the arguments of Messrs Nooruddin Sarki on behalf of the petitioner and M. Sarwar Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the official respondents, and Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid on behalf of respondent No.3: Mr. Nooruddin Sarki assailed the order of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee on the following grounds:- -
(i) That the P.R.C. Appellate Committee was not a properly constituted Committee as the Education Secretary was not associated therewith.
(ii) That the P.R.C. Appellate Committee ignored the evidence produced by the petitioner.
(iii) That the P.R.C. Appellate Committee also did not take into consideration the arguments advanced by the Advocate for the petitioner.
6. (iv)That the P.R.C. and the Domicile Certificate were issued by the District Magistrate, Shikarpur after proper inquiry and consideration of the facts and circumstances.
7. (v)That the petitioner was forced to acquire education in Larkana City on account of non- availability and/or proper educational facilities in Ghari Yasin.
8. (vi)That the P.R.C. Appellate CommittA also did not take into consideration the fact that the judgment of this Court, dated 23-4-1998 in Constitutional Petition No.257 of 1996 filed by the brother of the petitioner Ajeet Kumar in similar and identical circumstances dismissing the said petition was challenged before the Supreme Court; and
(vii) That the petitioner had acquired a vested right to study in Chandka Medical College, Larkana after having been provided admission on the basis of the P.R.C. and the Domicile Certificate.
9. Mr. M. Sarwar Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh supported the order of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee and submitted that both, the Commissioner, Larkana Division and the P.R.C. Appellate Committee in deciding the question of grant of P.R.C. to the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the same had been obtained by. the petitioner by representation of false facts, concealment of true facts and by forgery in the official record and the same had been rightly cancelled, the obvious result of which was the cancellation of her admission and that such orders were not exceptionable and were liable to be upheld.
10. With regard to the contention that the P.R.C. Appellate Committee which disposed of the appeal of the petitioner, was not legally constituted in accordance with the P.R.C. Rules, it is to be observed that the constitution of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee and the manner in which it is to carry out its work has been embodied in Rule 8 of the Sindh P.R.C. Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and it will be appropriate to reproduce the same as under:-- "8.--- (1) Any persons aggrieved by the grant or the refusal to grant by the District Magistrate of a certificate of Permanent Residence in Form 'C' or Form 'D' may within thirty days from the date of such grant or refusal comes to his knowledge prefer an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division and his order confirming the orders of the District Magistrate shall be final.
11. (2)if the Commissioner has received the order of the District Magistrate, a person aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner may, within thirty days of the order, file a second appeal before the Committee set up under sub-rule (3) and the order of the Committee shall be final.
12. (3)Government shall, for hearing appeal.under sub-rule (2), appoint a Committee consisting of three Senior Officers of Government, one of whom shall be 'Chairman of such Committee', and the appeal be decided in accordance with the view of majority of the members of the Committee: Provided that the appeal may be heard in absence of any one of the members of the Committee other than the Chairman and the decision by them if unanimous shall be deemed to be the decision of the Committee."
13. From a plain reading of above rule 8, it is to be noted that the P.R.C. Appellate Committee is to consist of three members one of whom is to act as Chairman. Proviso to rule 8 of the said Rules was inserted by Notification, dated 25th June, 1983 of the Home Department, Government of Sindh.
14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid proviso is sufficient to hold that in the absence of any defect in the constitution of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee or in the absence of anyone of the members of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee other than the Chairman, such defect or shortcoming would not be a ground for rendering unanimous decision of the remaining members as illegal or void. In view of the above observation, the objection taken by Mr. Nooruddin Sarki with regard to the legality of the order of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee is not well-founded and to our mind it appears that it has been raised merely with a view to provide the petitioner with a baseless and fictitious ground for filing this petition.
15. From perusal of the impugned order of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee, we find that it had taken into consideration all the relevant material which was before it for the purpose of deciding the question whether the petitioner was a permanent resident of Ghari Yasin so as to be entitled issuance of a P.R.C. from District Magistrate, Shikarpur. The P.R.C. Appellate Committee had also referred to the entries in the voters' list maintained by the Election Tribunal as well as other material, record and documents for revealing interpolation and alteration in the official record, which were made with a view to bring a change in the name of the father of the petitioner and to establish that he was a resident of Ghari Yasin so as to prove that the petitioner was also a resident of Ghari Yasin. The P.R.C. Appellate Committee had upheld the order of cancellation of the P.R.C. passed by the Commissioner, Larkana Division, who had also taken into consideration all the relevant material, facts and record before concluding that the petitioner had obtained the P.R.C. from District Magistrate, Shikarpur by placing reliance on forged and fabricated documents and entries.
16. With regard to the contention that the P.R.C. Appellate Committee did not take into consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner, we may observe that this is not borne out from the impugned order, wherein it has been emphatically stated that the counsel for the parties were heard and the relevant record was perused. It will not be out of question to mention that the petitioner had taken objection with regard to the maintainability of the Government's appeal for cancellation of the petitioner's P.R.C. before the Commissioner, Larkana Division on the ground that the same was barred by time having been filed after expiry of the period provided in rule 8(2) of the said Rules. This objection was replied to by the P.R.C. Appellate Committee in the terms that it was a well-settled principle of law that the question of limitation, would not come in the way for institution of appropriate proceedings for challenging void orders. The P.R.C. Appellate Committee further explained that the District Magistrate, Shikarpur had passed an order for issuance of P.R.C. and Domicile Certificate on the basis of forged documents rendering such Orders as void and the same was liable to be challenged at any time as the law of limitation does not apply to void orders.
17. It has been contended on behalf of the official respondents as well as respondent No.4 that the petitioner in obtaining the Domicile Certificate and the P.R.C. had produced forged and fabricated documents and had also endeavoured to manipulate the official entries in the voters' list relating to the name of her father with a view to establish his residence in Ghari Yasin. It has been generally held that where allegations of fraud and forgery are alleged against a party in obtaining a document or a judgment or an order from a Court or Tribunal then the entire proceedings together with the judgment/decree or the order of the Court or the Tribunal, are to be treated as void and nullity in the eye of law as fraud vitiates the most solemn of the transactions. For the above, reliance is placed on the case of Abdur Rehman Khan v. Muhammad Altaf and 3 others 1997 CLC 1260. This case was decided by a Division Bench o' this Court and it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion dealing with the aforesaid situation as under:-- "The Courts have been very careful and cautious in dealing with any situation where the slightest allegation of fraud or collusion is raised by any of the parties to the case and, whenever any such allegation or issue is raised the Court takes upon itself to hold a thorough and complete inquiry to find out as to whether the transaction is tainted with fraud for not and, if so, then the entire proceedings of the Court as well as the proceedings prior to the Court become illegal and void if it be established that the basis of case before the Court was a forged and fraudulent document.
18. Even a judgment/decree or an order obtained from a Court on the basis of a fraudulent statement or any other kind of fraud loses its authenticity or sanctity and fraud renders the judgment, decree and order of every. Court and Tribunal as voidable."
19. In view of the pronouncements made in the aforecited case, an order based on fraud or forgery is to be treated as a void order and a nullity in the eye of law. The law of limitation does not apply for challenging an order, which is a nullity in the eye of law. If any authority is required in support of the above, the same is available in the cases of (i) Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Punnu Khan and others 1986 SCMR 962 and (ii) Malik Khawaja Muhammad and 24 others v. Marduman Babar Kahol and 29 others 1987 SCMR 1543. In the case of Malik Khawaja Muhammad, the Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that a decree in suit passed in utter contravention of mandatory provisions of law was to be treated as a nullity and against such decree no limitation would run. In the present case, the order of the District Magistrate was in contravention of the existing facts inasmuch as he had failed to realize that the residence of the father of the petitioner as well as of the petitioner was being sought to be established on the ground of forged and fabricated documents/official record, which was in utter contravention of the mandatory provisions of law relating to the grant of Domicile Certificate and P.R.C. Hence no limitation would run for challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner by way of appeal. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the P.R.C. Appellate Committee had rightly come to the conclusion that no limitation would apply and the appeal filed before the Commissioner, Larkana Division was within time.
20. It may also be pointed out that brother of the petitioner Ajeet Kumar was also granted Domicile Certificate and the P.R.C. of Ghari Yasin by the District Magistrate, Shikarpur on the basis of the documents and record which had been relied by the petitioner. The Domicile Certificate and the P.R.C. issued in favour of the said Ajeet Kumar were held to be proper and valid up to the stage of Sindh P.R.C. Appellate Committee but were cancelled by this Court vide judgment, dated 17-4-1998 in C.P. No.D-195 of 1996, whereby the Domicile Certificate and P.R.C. obtained by Ajeet Kumar were held to have been obtained by misrepresentation, production forged documents, manipulation of N.I.C. and voters' list. By the aforesaid judgment, the admission of Ajeet Kumar in the Medical College was also declared to be illegal. In the present case also, we have not the slightest doubt that the petitioner had obtained the Domicile Certificate and P.R.C. on the basis of false statements, misrepresentation, production of forged documents and manipulation in the official record as is evident from the finding of the P.R.C. Appellate Committee. The admission of the petitioner on the basis of said forged documents can never be protected as the law does not favour a person who has obtained undue advantage by misrepresentation, forgery and playing fraud on the authorities.
21. Before concluding, we may refer here to the case of Zahoor Ahmad v. Province of Balochistan and 2 others PLD 1979 Quetta 55, wherein the High Court of Balochistan held that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction would not enter into investigation as to whether the Domicile Certificate had been erroneously issued by the District Magistrate on wrong facts or Selection Committee had erred in giving weight to such certificate. It is also a settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction would not pass an order which would have the effect of continuation or perpetuating an illegality or a wrong. In the case of The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331, the Supreme Court pronounced that fraud and forgery vitiated most solemn proceedings and no party could be allowed to take advantage of its own fraud and further that discretionary relief by this Court could not be granted to help retention of ill-gotten gains. The pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the aforecited case are applicable on all fours to the facts of this case as we find that assisting or granting discretionary reliefs to the petitioner in this case would amount to perpetuating the fraud committed by. the petitioner and retention of ill-gotten gains which she had obtained on account of issuance of P.R.C. on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud.
22. Upon the above discussion, we find that this Constitutional petition is without any substance and does not require consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed in limine alongwith the miscellaneous application pending therein.