Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. D – 204 of 2021

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar

Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing: 14-09-2021

Date of order: 14-09-2021

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, Advocate for the petitioner.

M/s Malik Naeem Iqbal and Deedar Ali M. Chohan, Advocates for respondents / Sindh Education Foundation along with Mr. Ashfaque Mirani, Regional Head, Sindh Education Foundation, Sukkur and Wazir Ali, Regional Head, Sindh Education Foundation, Khairpur.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

O R D E R

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J. – Through this Petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):

A. That this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue writ in favor of the petitioner declaring acts of respondents to cancel registration of Nida Public School as illegal ab initio, null and void and without any lawful authority.

B. To direct the respondent No. 1 to take action against the respondent No. 2 to 9 regarding the misuse of the funds of Sindh Education Foundation Government of acts of Respondents discriminating the petitioner.

C. To direct the Respondent No. 1 to take action in order to return the subsidy amount and all other payments made to the respondent No. 8 for different purposes to the government exchequer.

D. To direct respondent 10 to initiate inquiry against the colossal embezzlement made by the officials of the Sindh Education Foundation specifically respondent No. 9 who with the aid of Respondent No. 8 has embezzled millions from the government accounts.

E. To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the registration of petitioner’s school has been suspended without lawful authority and any opportunity of hearing; that official respondents in connivance with private respondents have misused the funds of Sindh Education Foundation; that the petitioner has been penalized due to alleged connivance of the respondents; that private respondent has committed fraud with the petitioner in association of the official respondents; that huge fraud in funds has been committed by them; therefore, the relief being sought be granted by this Court.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 has referred to the memo of the petition and submits that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No.8 is of private nature; hence, the petition itself is not maintainable. Similarly, the Petition has been opposed by the learned AAG and the Counsel for other respondents.

4. We have heard all the learned Counsel and perused the record.

5. Notice was ordered and upon filing of comments, it transpires that before passing of the impugned suspension and cancellation order dated 13-05-2019, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17-04-2019, and while confronted, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no such notice was received. It appears that the allegation against the petitioner was to the effect that upon a surprise visit, the school was found shifted from the designated place to somewhere else without permission of the competent authority, which resulted in passing of the impugned order.

6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that upon examination of the memo of Petition and the facts so stated specially in Para No.14[1], we do not see any reason for exercising our discretion in granting the relief being sought, whereas, the relief(s) except the one relating to the impugned order, are relatable to the private dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No.8; hence, we had dismissed this Petition by means of a short order announced in the earlier part of the day and these are the reasons thereof. However, before parting, we may observe that since the petitioner is now in possession of the show-cause notice as above, he may file his reply / response before the concerned respondent, who shall, after affording the opportunity of hearing, pass a final reasoned order regarding recalling the suspension order; or a final cancellation order as the case may be in accordance with law.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit

[1] That the petitioner was forced by Respondent No.8 & 9 to make partnership with SEF official for that purpose petition was called by the Respondent No.9 many times in their offices which petitioner refused point blank as he was not declared as the operator. The petitioner made representations to the Respondents and attended their offices and clear position. Where upon it was decided in an agreement that petitioner will remain administrator of the school and Pervez ahmed as operator for two years till 2019. This is because petitioner lacks two-year experience of running a school under SEF.