PLD 2023 Lah 694
Respondent had filed a Constitutional petition whereby he made complaint about the inaction of the Director General , Faisalabad Development Authority ( DG , FDA ) regarding non deciding his pending application and sough : direction to FDA for disposal of his pending application expeditiously High Court issued writ of mandamus to the DG , FDA with the direction that respondent's application shall be decided strictly in accordance with law by providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned , within a period of one month - Present applicants filed an application under S. 12 ( 2 ) , C.P.C. , for recalling / setting - aside the High Court's order on the plea that on account of inaction of the FDA regarding respondent's application he instituted a declaratory suit for obtaining the same relief , which was dismissed , and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed as withdrawn by the first appellate Court ; that in such circumstances , the application filed by the respondent before the FDA had become infructuous , and thus , there was no occasion for the respondent to file the writ petition for getting direction from the High Court , which directions was obtained by oncealment of facts and fraud -- Validity --- If the FDA made an incorrect decision , it did not create any right in favour of any party to approach the High Court to ask for recalling / setting - aside the impugned order of mandamus , as that concerned only the decision of the pending application which was to be decided in accordance with law --- Direction of the High Court was only to take a decision on the undecided / unattended application in accordance with law - It should have been decided by the FDA after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case , relevant laws and affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties - If any illegality had been committed by the FDA while deciding the application by not giving due weight to the documentary evidence produced by the applicants , in such eventuality , the said order was liable to be challenged on the same grounds before an appropriate forum -- Concealment of facts may be a good ground to challenge the validity of the order but it cannot be considered a ground for setting - aside the order passed by the High Court --- It was never the intention of the High Court while issuing the impugned direction to favour any of the parties but the only purpose of the direction was to point out to that FDA to perform its duty qua a pending issue within parameters of the law --- Application under S. 12 ( 2 ) , C.P.C was dismissed as being not maintainable .
0 Comments