The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent No, 2 sent a notice to the petitioner for appearance before him on 4-6-1999. The notice contained an allegation of opening of commercial office illegally in a residential house and alleged violation of Section 38 LDA Act, 1975. The petitioner sent his friend Amjad Iqbal to contact respondent No,2 and, obtained the necessary details. Mr. Amjad Iqbal was directed to write an application which a pre-condition for obtaining the requisite information and subsequently he was forced to sign certain papers. The respondent No,2 convicted him and fined Rs,10,000 in default whereof he was to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Amjad Iqbal had filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge against order of conviction of respondent No,2.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned notice issued by respondent No,2 does not contain name of any person. This fact alone is sufficient that a notice was issued to the petitioner mala fide. He further submits that petitioner is a General Secretary of Pakistan Peoples Party and the proceedings were initiated by the respondents under the direction of the politicians of the Ruling party at that time. He further submits that the petitioner has not converted the property in question from residential to commercial. He further submits that respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with law.
3. The learned Legal Advisor of the respondents submits that respondents have taken action against the petitioner in accordance with law without any direction of the politicians of that regime at the time when the action was taken against the petitioner as is evident from Para. 3 of the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents. He further submits that Amjad Iqbal had already filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the petitioner has filed this writ petition nit el v on apprehension and the writ petition is nut maintainable. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted tact that the petitioner has not challenged the order of conviction passed by respondent No, 2 against Amjad Iqbal. Amjad Iqbal had already filed revision petition before the.
Sessions Judge. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the prayer made in the writ petition to resolve the controversy between the parties which is as under: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the acts of respondents of issuance of notice and extension of threats by paying visits, particularly the action against aforesaid Amjad Iqbal a friend of the petitioner may graciously be declared as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, mala fide and without lawful authority, consequently they may be restrained from causing harassment to the petitioner and his family members, more particularly they be restrained from sending illegal and unlawful notices and from extending threats to the petitioner and his family members by paying visits to his residence.
The aforesaid prayer clearly reveals that the petitioner has filed writ petition on mere apprehension and the writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Re-Rolling Steel Mills' case (1968 SCM R 317 (2). It is also settled principle of law that writ petition against the notice is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 SC 360). In case the contents of writ petition and parawise comments are put in juxta position, then it brings the case in the area of disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down in Muhammad Younas's case (1993 SCM R 618).
The petitioner has alleged allegations against the subordinates of respondent No,3, in the interest of justice and fair play let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No, 1 who is directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. The learned Legal Advisor of the LDA is also directed to notify this order to respondent No,
1. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.