PLJ 2018 Quetta 133 (DB)
Present : NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE AND JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL , JJ.
NOOR AHMED and another --Petitioners
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHARAN and 3 others --Respondents
C.P. No. 255 of 2017, decided on 17.5.2017.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition --Admission in Medical College --Petitioner appeared in entry
test and stood at Serial No. 1 on merit --Permanent Resident of Kharan and obtained NIC --
Cancellation of local certificate by respondents --Condemned unheard--Challenge to --That
notices were sent to address, where petitioners were not residing --It was an intentional attempt to
obtain/pass a favorable order behind petitioners --It is furt her observed with grave concern that
private respondent left no stone unturned to get petitioners declared as non -locals of Kharan and
in this respect, he obtained various certificates, wherein it is stated with force that petitioners are
not permanent res idents of area which in our view point is a bad and classic example of
depriving citizens from their identity, which cannot be taken so lightly --Petitioners have been
able to prove that they are bonafide residents of Kharan, and are residing there since th eir fore
fathers --It is manifest from old ID cards annexed with petition, wherein permanent residence of
Petitioner No. 1, his father Ameer Hamza and mother Mst. Bibi Gul have been shown as of
Kharam City issued in year 1995, 1975 and 1990, besides issuanc e of local certificates to
Petitioner No. 1 and his brother Khalid Ahmed on 24- 07-1994 (later’s certificate is still intact) --
Now all of sudden, whole machinery became highly proactive to cancel local certificates of petitioners, perhaps after getting remarkable marks by a poor girl, Petitioner No. 2 who stood at Serial No. 1 of merit list for admission in first year of MBBS --Respondents particularly D.C
Kharan was supposed to be a responsible and an unbiased officer, has acted illegally by way of cancellin g local certificates of petitioners in haste which too without affording opportunity of
hearing to them to defend their certificates hence such act is not sustainable under law --Petition
was accepted.
[P. 135] A & B
Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate for Petiti oners.
Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for Respondents.
Mr. Shai Haq, AAG for State.
Date of hearing: 3.5.2017.
ORDER
Nazeer Ahmed Langove J; --The petitioner filed the instant petition with the following prayer:--
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that order issued by Respondent No. 1 upon
recommendation of Respondent No. 2 may be ordered to be set -aside and Respondent No.
3 may be directed to consider the documents and result of pre -entry test for the academic
session 2016/17 existing in favor of Petitioner No. 2. Any other relief deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed the instant petition with averments that
father of the Petitioner No. 1 and grandfathe r of the Petitioner No. 2 namely Ameer Hamza (late)
S/O Khuda -e-Nazar Khan was permanent resident of Kharan and he had obtained his National
Identity Card Bearing No. 602- 40-170553 on 02.06.1975. Similarly, the Petitioner No. 1 and
grandmother of the Petit ioner No. 2 namely Mst. Bibi Gul obtained her National Identity Card
Bearing No. 636- 90-014756. It is further stated that the Petitioner No. 1 having identity card
Bearing No. 636- 74-117063besides obtaining local certificate of Kharan issued by District
Magistrate, Kharan Bearing No. 3659/LC/GB dated 24- 07-1994. B -form of father of Petitioner
No. 1 also existed. It is further stated that Khalid Ahmed, the brother of Petitioner No. 1, is also a permanent resident of said District having local certificate Bea ring No. 3660/LC/GB dated 24-
07-1994. It is further stated that the Petitioner No. 2 applied for admission in Bolan Medical
College, Quetta and obtained prospectus and Form on 27- 12-2016 and submitted the same with
Respondent No. 3, appeared in the pre -entry test for admission in BMC and stood at Serial No. 1
on merit, whereas the Respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 4. However, when She approached to the office of Respondent No. 3 for result, it transpired that her local certificate has
been cancelled by the Respondent No. 1 upon recommendation of Respondent No. 2 on 13- 03-
2017. It is further stated that the petitioners have been condemned unheard and they have been
deprived of their local certificates, which too without providing opportunity of hearin g to defend
their position. It is alleged that the local certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled at the instance of an influential person of the area, hence instant constitutional petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order impugned issued by the Respondent No. 1 is contrary to law, facts and principles of natural justice for the reasons that the petitioners have
been condemned unheard, as such, impugned order passed b y Respondent No. 1 is not
sustainable under the law and is liable to be reversed. He added that that the order impugned is
based on mala fide intention, just to deprive the Petitioner No. 2 from admission in the BMC and
to accommodate the Respondent No. 4 illegally.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 strongly opposed the petition by
submitting that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is based on legal and factual
grounds that after due probe, quarry and obtaining repor ts from the competent forums, on the
basis whereof, the local certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled. He maintained that
since the petitioners were not the residents of Kharan and had obtained the local certificates with
fraud therefore, the l ocal certificates obtained on the basis of fraud and concealment of facts have
rightly been cancelled.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able
assistance, which reflects that the notices were sent t o the address, where the petitioners were not
residing. It was an intentional attempt to obtain/pass a favorable order behind the petitioners. It is further observed with grave concern that the private respondent left no stone unturned to get the petitione rs declared as non -locals of Kharan and in this respect, he obtained various certificates,
wherein it is stated with force that the petitioners are not the permanent residents of area which
in our view point is a bad and classic example of depriving citize ns from their identity, which
cannot be taken so lightly.
Conversely, the petitioners have been able to prove that they are bona fide residents of Kharan,
and are residing there since their fore fathers. It is manifest from the old ID cards annexed with
the petition, wherein the permanent residence of the Petitioner No. 1, his father Ameer Hamza
and mother Mst. Bibi Gul have been shown as of Kharan City issued in the year 1995, 1975 and
1990, besides the issuance of local certificates to the Petitioner No. 1 and his brother Khalid Ahmed on 24- 07-1994 (later’s certificate is still intact). Now all of sudden, the whole machinery
became highly proactive to cancel the local certificates of the petitioners, perhaps after getting remarkable marks by a poor girl, t he Petitioner No. 2 who stood at Serial No. 1 of the merit list
for admission in the first year of MBBS. The respondents particularly the D.C Kharan was
supposed to be a responsible and an unbiased officer, has acted illegally by way of cancelling the
local certificates of the petitioners in haste which too without affording opportunity of hearing to them to defend their certificates hence such act is not sustainable under the law.
In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case the petition is hereby accepted
and the order impugned dated 13.03.2017 whereby the local certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled is set aside and consequently, the local certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are restored
(M.M.R.) Petition acceptedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.