IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Present:
Irshad Ali Shah, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
CP D 1368 of 2013 : Sher Ali Jatoi vs.
Abdul Hamid Bhurgri & others.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. A.G.
Dates of hearing : 23.02.2022.
Date of announcement : 23.02.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This petition was filed in 2013 seeking a writ of quo warranto against respondent No.1, engaged as Additional Advocate General in the year 2008. While the petitioner seeks the contesting respondent to be de-notified yet has not even deigned to place the notification of appointment of the respondent before this Court; either with the petition or in eight years ever since. It is also noted that a statement of withdrawal of petition was placed on file on 12.02.2018, without any cavil from the petitioner till date, however, the petitioner has disowned the said statement today, four years later, and seeks to agitate the present petition.
2. Per the petitioner, the contesting respondent could not have been appointed Additional Advocate General since he was below the age of 45 years and did not have the requisite legal standing on the date of his appointment. Upon query whether the alleged disqualification, with respect to the age and legal standing, still subsisted, the petitioner replied in the negative.
3. The learned Addl. A.G. has placed on record judgment dated 27.11.2019 in the case of Zulfiqar Ali Domki vs. Province of Sindh and others (CP D 7596 of 2017) and submitted the controversy in the present petition has already been determined vide paragraph 21 thereof. It is considered illustrative to reproduce relevant findings herein below:
“Now coming to the case of respondent No.5 who was appointed as an Additional Advocate General on 23.08.2017 when he only had about seven years’ standing of an advocate of High Court. Admittedly neither the Rules 1940 nor any other statute or regulation (other than the Notification 117, which we have already held to be irrelevant and ultra vires to the 1940 Rules) prescribing High Court standing requisites at the time of appointment of the said respondent as Additional Advocate General though this position finds its mention in Entry No.20 of IVth Schedule of the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986, we are at loss to see any violations committed in appointing the said respondent as an Additional Advocate General vide Notification dated 23.08.2017. Nonetheless through Notification 2018, experience requisite for the said appointment having been reduced to seven years, which the said respondent very well possesses and in the light what has been discussed in paragraph 19, we do not see any reason to interfere with his appointment.”
4. Heard and perused. A the writ of quo warranto is a judicial remedy by virtue whereof a holder of public office may be called upon to demonstrate the right where under he holds office, failing which he may be ousted from such office[1].It is an admitted position that there is no subsisting impediment in respect of the eligibility of the respondent to hold office, hence, the only question remained was with regard to the eligibility of the respondent upon the date of his appointment.
5. Admittedly, the said question has been resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in Zulfiqar Domki. The petitioner and the respective counsel were queried as to whether the said judgment had been set aside, however, they responded in the negative and submitted that it remained to hold the field.It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner did not endeavor to distinguish the cited judgment and / or articulate any cavil with respect to its applicability hereto. It is thus apparent that the law enunciated vide Zulfiqar Domki remains binding precedent in view of the Multiline[2]principles.
6. Therefore, in mutatis mutandis application of the binding precedent of Zulfiqar Domki, this petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE