CH. IJAZ AHMAD, 1.--- The brief facts out of which the present intra Court appeal arises are that respondent No. 5 filed W.P. No. 1992/2002 before this Court with the prayer for issuing direction to the Government officials to ensure the payment of sugarcane to him and other sugarcane growers from the Mill owners at the rate of Rs.40/- per 40 Kg and road tax deduction at the rate of 40 paisas with effect from the commencement of crushing season 2001-02 in the light of Notification dated 29.12.2001. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court and respondent No. 5 Was directed to approach Cane Commissioner in the first instance. Respondent No. 5 submitted an application before respondent No. 3 on 8.2.2002 who entrusted the same to respondent No. 4 for necessary action. Respondent No. 4 directed the appellant to submit detailed report in the matter vide letter dated 21.3.2002. The appellant submitted has reply before respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 also filed an application before respondent No. 2 who also directed the appellant to appear before him vide order dated 6.4.2002. Respondent No. 2 also directed the Chairman Pakistan Sugar Mills Association to appear before him on 18.4.2002 vide order dated 13.4.2002. Respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 6.5.2002 and directed the appellant to make payment to the growers at the rate of Rs.40/- per 40 Kg. The appellant being aggrieved filed W.P. No. 9012/2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.6.2002. Hence the present intra Court appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge without adverting to the grounds taken by the appellant in the writ petition. He further submits that learned Single Judge dismissed the Constitutional petition without appreciating the real controversy arising between the parties. Respondent No. 2 had given the direction in the impugned order in violation of the findings in paras Nos. 8 and 9 of the impugned order. He further submits that impugned order of the Cane Commissioner and impugned order of this Court would create pandora box qua the payments already received by the growers.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on findings in place of the findings of the Tribunals below in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Musaddaq's case (PLD 1973 Lah. 600). We are also fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Export Promotion Bureau v. Qaisar Shafi Ullah (1994 SCM R 859). The relevant observation is as follows:- "It is well-settled proposition of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is not designed and intended to be used as a substituted for a regular appeal. In a Constitutional petition the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact merely on the ground that the reasons which found favour with the authority whose order is under scrutiny were not such which would have been accepted by the High Court. The Constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to rectify jurisdiction defects. It is to be pressed into service against an order which is without jurisdiction or tainted with malice or is violative of provisions of Constitution/Law and not to correct a finding of fact."
We ourselves have perused the impugned order of the Cane Commissioner dated 6.5.2002 with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and uphold the finding of the Cane Commissioner. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order had clarified the lacunae in the impugned order of the Cane Commissioner in the following terms:- "It only needs to be clarified that those persons, who had received the payment prior to 29.12.2001 without protest, will not be entitled to the rate fixed by the Notification dated 29.12.2001."