' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that piece of land outside Sabzi Mandi, Mandi Bahauddin was leased out to All Pakistan Social Welfare Organization in sixties for construction of shops. The said organization handed over the shops in question to another organization namely Shatik respondent No,3, Mandi Bahauddin in 1967 which was approved by the Municipal Committee Mandi Bahauddin vide its Resolution No,160. Dated 5-3-1970 and nominal rent of Re.1 per month for each shop was fixed. The lease was rented out vide agreement dated 25- 7-1981 and 8-7-1984 through which rent was fixed as Rs,8 and 10 respectively per month for each shop. The foresaid agreement executed between the respondents Nos.2 and 3 contained specific conditions, according to which respondent No,3 was bound not to sublet the shops in question to the present petitioners/occupants in violation of the terms and the conditions and agreed between respondents Nos.2 and 3. It appears that applications were filed before the higher authorities qua the aforesaid agreements. Inquiry Officer was appointed by the competent Authority who after inquiry submitted report in respect of disputed shops on 11-5-1980. Respondent No,2 cancelled the allotment of shops from the name of respondent No,3 vide order, dated 20-3-1995.
Petitioners/occupants were also directed to hand over the possession of the shop to Municipal Committee. Respondent No,3 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent No,2 filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin on 24-3-1995. During the pendency of the suit the respondent No,2 had withdrawn the order dated 20-3-1995 vide order dated 30-5-1996 and accepted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No,3 had withdrawn his suit after the aforesaid order. Petitioner being aggrieved tiled appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi Bahauddin on 6-6-1996. Petitioner also filed suit in the Court of learned Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin on 18-7- 1996 for the deposit of rent in the Municipal fund. The appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 28-2-1997. The respondents allegedly executed 8 agreements with the petitioners. Petitioners were allowed to deposit the rent for the period from March, 1995 to June, 1997. Petitioners had withdrawn their suit from the Court of learned Rent Controller on 12-3-1997. Respondent No,3 being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28-2-1997 filed Writ Petition No,8451 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 1-10-1998 as not processed as the Deputy Commissioner would have no objection to the carrying on business in the shops in question and to receive the loan from the petitioners. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the orders, dated 28-10-1998 of the aforesaid Constitutional Petition filed I.C.A. No, 1022 of 1998 which was dismissed vide order, dated 28-10-1998 on the ground that writ petition has been dismissed as having not pressed. Therefore, appeal was not competent. Respondent No,2 executed agreement with respondent No,3 on 4-12- 1998. Respondent No,3 tiled ejectment petitions against the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No,7554 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 2-5-2000 and copy of the writ petition was sent to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development for decision. Respondent No,4 decided the case against the petitioner on 28-6-2000. Petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents wrongly interpreted the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28-10-1998 and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1-10- 1998. He further submits that respondent No,3 being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28-2-1997 filed Writ Petition No, 8451 of 1997 which was dismissed as not pressed vide order, dated 1-10-1998. Petitioner being aggrieved tiled I.C.A. No,1022 of 1998 which was dismissed as the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. He further submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28-2-1997 still holds the field. Therefore, respondents are not justified under the law to execute the agreement with respondent No,3 on 4-12-1998. He further submits that action of the respondent No, 2 is in violation of section 134(2)(b)(c) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the action is also in violation of the instructions dated 22-9-1972 and 2-5-1973. He further submits that shops were rented out by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3 without prior approval of the competent Authority in terms of the aforesaid instructions. He further submits that respondent No,2 had rented out the shops in question to respondent No,2 on nominal rent of Rs,10 per month which is not in the interest of Municipal Committee Mandi Bahauddin.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submit that petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition and petitioners are not tenant of respondent No,2 as is envisaged by section 2(1) of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He further submits that instructions issued by the authority under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 has no relevancy to resolve the present controversy as the agreement was executed by respondent No,2 under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He further submits that section 134 is not relevant and is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No,2 has only granted licence and licensee has no vested right. Respondent No,2 has jurisdiction to terminate grant at any time without assigning any reason. He further submits that petitioners want enforcement of contract through this Constitutional petition which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He further submits that respondent No,3 is a Welfare Organization and respondent No,2 had given the shops to respondent No,3 in the public interest. The allegations of mala fides alleged by the petitioner against respondent No,2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that agreement executed by respondent No,2 either with the petitioners or with respondent No,3 had already been expired and the petition has become infructuous. He further submits that petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that Election had already been held. The respondent No,2 shall formulate fresh policy qua property in question to lease the same in accordance with law which shall be legislated by the competent Authority in due course of time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 submits that land in question was given to respondent No,3 who had constructed the shops over the disputed land from its own resources. Respondent No,3 rented out the shops in question to the petitioners as is evident from the reply of para. I of the report of respondent No,2. He further submits that ejectment petition filed by respondent No,3 is pending adjudication before the learned Rent Controller. Petitioners are well within their right to agitate all the legal and factual objections before the learned Rent Controller. He further submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy by virtue of section 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He further submits that respondent No,3 is Welfare Society and is working for the welfare of the poor people. Petitioners filed this writ petition with mala fide intention. Therefore, same is liable to' be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the writ petition is maintainable and petitioner challenged the vires of the order of respondent No,4 which is admittedly a public functionary.
' I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the material facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:
(i) The land in question was leased out by respondent No,2 to Pakistan Social Welfare Organization in sixties for the construction of shops.
(ii) Pakistan Social Welfare Organization handed over the shops to respondent No,3 in the year 1967.
(iii) The aforesaid exchange was approved by respondent No,2 vide Resolution No,160, dated 5-3- 1970.
(iv) Respondent No,2 renewed the lease in favour of respondent No,3 vide agreements dated 25-7- 1981 and 8-7-1984 with the condition that respondent No,3 was bound not to sublet the shops to any other persons.
(v) Respondent No,3 subletted the shops in question to the petitioners.
(vi) The respondent No,2 cancelled the lease of respondent No,3 on 20-3-1995 on the ground of subletting the shops in question to the petitioners.
(vii) The petitioners were also directed to hand over possession to respondent No,2.
(viii)The respondent No,3 filed a suit against respondent No,2 which had been withdrawn by respondent No,3 as the respondent No,2 had recalled the order, dated 20-3-1995 vide order, dated 30-5-1996. The petitioners challenged the order of respondent No,2, dated 30-5-1996 before respondent No,1 who accepted the appeal of petitioners vide order, dated 28-2-1997. Respondent No,3 being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,8451 of 1997 which was dismissed as not pressed on 1-10- 1998 in the following terms:-- "Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, Magistrate 1st Class present in Court states that District Magistrate, Mandi Bahauddin will have no objection to the carrying on business and to receive the rent by petitioners.
In this view of the matter learned counsel of the petitioners does not press this petition as having become fructified."
(ix) The petitioner being aggrieved tiled Intra-Court Appeal No,1022 of 1998 which was dismissed in the following terms:-- "It is clear from the operative portion of the judgment as contained in para. No,2 of the writ petition that the writ petition had been dismissed as having not been pressed, therefore, this appeal is not competent."
(x) The petitioners filed Writ Petition No,7554 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 2-5-2000. Copy of the writ petition was sent to respondent No,4 who was directed either to decide the application of the petitioners himself or constitute a Committee to probe into the matter and decide the application of the petitioners in accordance with law after providing personal hearing to the petitioners within two months. The respondent No,4 dismissal the application of the petitioners vide impugned order, dated 28-6-2000 in the following terms:-- "6. I have gone through the record at length and given cautious and careful consideration to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners had miserably failed to prove his contention that the orders of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,8451 of 1997 are not intact. This is entirely contrary to the reality in view of the clear/unambiguous text of the judgment of Honourable High Court dated 1-10-1998 and report sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioners are also defaulters in payment of rent to the 'SHATIK' for the last 3 to 4 years. This being so, the petition is rejected being devoid of legal force/cogent ground."
' In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same was passed by respondent without applying his independent mind. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizen without fear, favour and nepotism as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. It is also settled proposition of law that it is the duty and obligations of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the parties with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Services' case (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in PLD 1994 Lahore 3. (Ahmad Latif Qureshi case). Since the impugned order did not contain any reason and decided by respondent No,4 in a summary manner without applying his independent mind, therefore, the same is set aside. Meaning thereby the application tiled by the petitioners before respondent No,4 shall be deemed to be pending adjudication who is directed to decide the application of the petitioners afresh on merits after providing proper hearing to all the concerned with two months. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No,4 on 18-7-2001 at 11-00 a.m. Who is directed to decide the same within two months till 18-9-2001. He is also directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The respondents are restrained to take any action against the petitioners till the aforesaid date. In case the respondent No,4 decides the application of the petitioners before the said date then the respondents are restrained to take action till the decision of respondent No,4.
' The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has no force on the following reasons:--
(i) The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order of respondent No,4 through this constitutional petition;
(ii) Petitioners have no alternate remedy against the impugned order.
(iii) The order, dated 2-5-2000 has been accepted by respondents Nos.2 to 3, same is final between the parties as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145).
' In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.