This writ petition has been filed by Province of Punjab (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing 11- Egerton Road, Lahore) which is supported by an-~ affidavit of Muhammad Azim, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, In paia. 20 of the writ petition it is mentioned as under:-- "The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by this Honourable Court in Writ Petition No.55/R of 1983 which has stopped further proceedings."
2. On 8-2-1996, objection was raised about the maintainability of this Constitutional petition which was to the effect "that it is not shown as to under whose authority this petition has been filed. The original counsel Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, derives his authority from Wakalatnama allegedly executed by one Muhammad Azam, Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
3. When confronted with the abovesaid objection learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was competent to agitate this matter before this Court when the allotment obtained was based on fraud and misrepresentation, I am afraid the contention of the learned counsel has any force for the simple reason that if the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in regard to stay, of proceedings through an order passed in Writ Petition No.55/R of 1983 then the remedy provided under law was to file an application for vacation of stay order. Deputy Commissioner was the 4 competent Authority to act on behalf of Province of Punjab and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer in his official capacity or otherwise cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in relation to a judicial order regarding affairs of Government. The present petition has been filed without any valid authority as no such authority is available on the file. This being so, this petition is not maintainable. If any authority is needed reference may be made to Manthar and another v. Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and 4 others 1996 M LD 1510. Deputy Settlement Commissioner cannot bind and use the name of Province of Punjab and institute litigation on its behalf.
4. In the light of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed, with costs.