Ch. Ljaz Ahmad, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of Pakistan Sports Board dated 28.6.2000 through this Constitution petition whereby Pakistan Sports Board constituted Ad hoc Committee for Pakistan Amateur Basketball Federation.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Ad hoc Committee was not constituted by Board in terms of rules 4(XI). According to the aforesaid rules, the Board has taken decision and thereafter its approval was sought. Whereas the impugned Notification was issued by the respondents without adopting prescribed procedure in the aforesaid rules. The Pakistan Sports Board constituted Ad hoc Committee under the direction of President which is not inconsonance with the aforesaid rules. He further urged that the impugned Notification was issued without notice to the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. No further submits that the petitioner has taken specific allegation in paras Nos. 10 and 13 of the writ petition qua the vires of the impugned notification to, the extent that the same was not issued in terms of the aforesaid rules.
Respondent No 1 did not controvert the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the .Aforesaid paragraphs in its report and parawise comments.
3. Mr. Sher Zaman, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No. 1 submits that late Muhammad Afzal, President of the petitioner's Federation association requested Respondent No. 1 to constituent a Ad hoc Committee in the year 1984 as is evident from Annexure-V attached with the report and parawise comments of respondent No. 1. He further submits that petitioner was elected Secretary of Federation on 14.9.1994 for. 4 years and his term of office had already been expired on 4.9.1998, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. No further submits that President of Federation had filed Writ Petition No. 22262/2000 challenging the vires of the impugned Notification which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.6.2001, therefore, second writ petition qua the same subject-matter is not maintainable. No further submits that respondent No. 1 had lawful authority to issue impugned Notification under the provisions of Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 and rules framed thereunder. Respondent No. 1 has validly issued impugned Notification by exercising powers under Rule 4(XI) of Pakistan Sports Board Rules, 1961.
He further submits that notification was issued by respondent No. 1 under the direction of President as is envisaged under the aforesaid rules. The objection raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner that Board had first to take a decision and then would have taken approval from the President which is a technical objection, otherwise compliance of the rule has been made when action has been taken under the direction of President. The substantial justice has been done between the parties, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner himself participated in the, Election conducted by Ad hoc Committee constituted by the respondent No. 1 through the impugned Notification on 15.1.2000. The petitioner is estopped to file this writ petition on the well-known principle of waiver and estoppel.
5. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 submits that Respondent No. 1 has no authority under the law to constitute Ad hoc Committee under the provision of Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 and rules framed thereunder. He further submits that respondent No. 2 is neither statutory nor automatons body nor any under control of respondent No. 1, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed qua against Respondent No. 2. He further submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach respondent No. 2 for holding arbitration proceedings and to proceed according to its on Constitution.The petitioner failed to approach respondent No. 2, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the disputed question of facts can only be decided through the Election instead of intervention of the Court. No further submits that respondent No. 2 requested respondent No. 1 to hold Election in accordance with provisions of Constitution of Pakistan Amateur Basketball Federation.
6. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the Writ Petition No. 22262/2000 which was allowed by this Court just all exceptions and subsequently, the said order had been re-called by this Court. The petitioner was allowed to agitate the matter in accordance with law in his on personal capacity or otherwise as is evident from the order of this Court dated 12.6.2001. He further submits that the petitioner is aggrieved person and remained Secretary General of Federation till 1998. According to the Constitution, the petitioner shall remain Secretary General of the Federation till fresh elections be hold in accordance with Constitution.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. Without adverting to the contentions of the parties on merits, I intend to decide the writ petition on the principle of waiver and estoppel.
8. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts to resolve the controversy between the parties to the extent that principle of waiver and estoppel is attracted or not, which are reproduced as follows:-
(i) Ad hoc Committee was constituted vide Notification dated 28.6.2000.
(ii) Ad hoc Committee held Elections on 15.1.2000.
(i.e) The petitioner participated in the Elections hold by Ad hoc Committee as is evident from para No. 1 of the writ petition.
(iv) Respondent No. 1 in written reply of para No. 10, had taken stand that late President himself approached the Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs during the year; 1984 to impose Ad hoc Committee on the Pakistan Amateur -Basketball Federation. A copy of the letter from the late President is attached as annexure-V, alongwith report and parawise comments filed by respondent No. 1.
The petitioner did not challenge the impugned notification of the appointment of Ad hoc Committee till 15.1.2000 and participated in the Election held by the Adhoc Committee on 15.1.2000, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I am fortified by reported judgment of D.B. Of Karachi High Court in Abdul Sattar Yousaf's case (PLJ 1984 Kar. 108) and the relevant observation is as follows:- "I also find substantial force'in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having taken part as share-holder of the Company in the extraordinary general meeting of the Company held on 22.2.1979 and having elected petitioner No. 2 and one Hamid A. Ghani as Director of Board of Director of Company Constitution, under the provisions of P.O.A. 1972 and having consistently taken part in the management of the Company, completely acquiescence in the action taken by the Federal Government and rather, therefore, debarred from objecting to the same. For the aforesaid reasons we dismissed all the above three writ petitions on the ground of acquiescence on the part of the petitioners in the action of Federal Government."
1970 SCMR 574) and the relevant observations is as follows:- "In any case, by doing so, they had acquiescence in the impugned order through petition clearly suffer from !Aches and the High Court perfectly justified in dismissing it on that ground."
PLD 1967 Lah. 977) and laid down the principle; that a party which has acquiescence in erroneous order or irregular proceedings even defective jurisdiction is not entitled to question it subsequently by invoking a high prerogative jurisdiction. Reference can also be made Riyasat Ali Azad's case (PLD 1968 Lah. 56) and Malik Muhammad Din's case (PLD 1968 Lah. 544). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction have equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a person who has come to Court with gross negligence. I am fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohsin Khan`s case (1969 SCMR 306) and Suleman's case (1970 SCMR 574).