IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

(Constitutional Jurisdiction)

C.M. No._________________/2020

In

Case No. _________95978/2020

Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan

& Others
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908, FOR SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS.
Respectfully Sheweth;

1. That the Applicant/Petitioner has filed the titled writ petition before this
Hon’ble Court. The last date of hearing of hearing of the Petition before the
this honourable Court was 10-09-2020; the next date of hearing is 14-09-
2020.

2. That the titled petition concerns the valuable rights of Applicant/Petitioner

as well as 80 million residents of the Province of Punjab. On the last date of
hearing this honourable Court raised the issue of locus standi and
maintainability of the Petition directed the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to advance
their arguments. Considering the importance of the constitutional issues
involved and for justly determining the rights of Applicant/Petitioner, the
Applicant/Petitioner would like to place the following additional documents
on the record of the titled Petition pending adjudication before this
honourable Court:
 i. AD Khawaja Case (PLD 2018 Sindh 8)
Copy of a reported judgment, Karamat Ali v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(PLD 2018 Sindh 8), of the honourable Sindh High Court, by honourable
Justice Munib Akhtar, wherein on the issue of appointment and removal of
IGP wherein a petition filed by residents of Karachi and an NGO, a
notification removing IG Sindh AD Khawaja before the expiry of his tenure
was struck down and it was declared that he was entitled to security of
tenure;

ii. Supreme Court’s Order in AD Khawaja Case:

Province of Sindh vs. Shehri – Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
[Order dated: 22-03-2018 in CA 148 & 149/18] wherein the SC upheld the
principles laid down by honourable Justice Munib Akhtar in AD Khawaja
case (PLD 2018 Sindh 8).

iii. IG Punjab Usman Khattak Removal case

Copies of Order dated 18-07-2017 passed in WP No. 5973/2017
(Muhammad Razzaq v. FoP etc.) (”): In this petition a notification for the
appointment of an IGP/PPO was suspended and directions were issued for
the implementation of the Police Order 2002. The honourable Chief
Justice of this honourable declared the notification whereby Muhammad
Usman had been transferred and posted as the PPO, was suspended with the
direction to the federal and provincial governments to appoint the PPO
strictly in terms of Sections 11 and 12 of the Police Order, 2002.

iv. Anita Turab Case (PLD 2013 SC 195)

In Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Federation of Pakistan, Para 22(ii)
the hon’ble SC held:
“Tenure, posting and transfer: When the ordinary tenure for a posting has
been specified in the law or rules made thereunder, such tenure must be
respected and cannot be varied, except for compelling reasons, which
should be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable.”
3. That the Office of Registrar has objected to the locus standi of the petitioner
and this honourable court also questioned the Petitioner to satisfy her how he
was aggrieved. In this regard, the petitioner respectfully submits two main
following arguments:

a. Writ of Quo Warranto under Article 199 (b)(ii) of the Constitution

Does not require the Petitioner to be Aggrieved party;
b. Assuming arguendo, the Petitioner is Aggrieved in three different
capacities:
i. As a resident of Punjab and a citizen of Pakistan whose
fundamental rights are adversely affected by unjust and
inefficient Policing;
ii. As an advocate of the High Court interested in just and
efficient functioning of the criminal justice system; and
iii. As an Elected Representative:
1. As a representative of the people of PP 176 hold the
Provincial police accountable on behalf of the people of
his constituency and ensure effective policing;
2. As a Member of the Provincial Assembly who is eligible
to be member of the Provincial Public Safety
Commission; and
3. As a Member of the Provincial Assembly hold the
Cabinet accountable, under Art. 130(6), and efficiency of
Police force;

4. That the following judgements in support of the aforementioned submissions

concerning locus standi are cited:
a. Hafiz Hamdullah Vs. Saifullah Khan (PLD 2007 SC 52) and
b. Munir Ahmed v Federation of Pakistan (2018 CLC 530) [LHC, J.
Shahid Karim].

5. That the wording of Article 199 (b)(ii) of the Constitution states that any
person can be apply to the High Court for making an order: In para 12 of
 Hafiz HAMDULLAH Vs. SAIFULLAH KHAN (PLD 2007 SC 52), the
hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“Para. 12: It is, however, to be noted that respondent No.1 has
approached High Court of Balochistan by way of a constitutional
petition wherein he had prayed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto
against the appellant. A writ of the quo warranto is in the nature of
laying an information before a Court, against a person who claimed
and usurped an office, franchise or liberty, requesting for holding an
enquiry to enable him to show the authority under which he supported
his claim of right to the office, franchise or liberty. Its object is to
determine the legality of the holder of a statutory or constitutional
office and decide whether he was holding such office in accordance
with law or was unauthorizedly occupying a public office. Where a
person prays for a writ of quo warranto the Court would be under an
obligation to enquire whether the incumbent is holding the office
under the orders of a competent authority and also to examine
whether he would be legally qualified to hold the office or to remain
in the office. For issuance of a writ of quo warranto the person
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution is not required to fulfill the stringent conditions
required for brining himself within the meaning of an aggrieved
person. Any person can move the High Court to challenge the
usurpation or unauthorized occupation of a public office by the
incumbent of that office and he is not required to establish his locus
standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of
the Constitution in a manner as generally required by the said Article.
This Court in the case of M.U.A. Khan v. Rana Muhammad Sultan
and another (PLD 1974 SC 228) categorically pronounced that a
Civil Petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto can be moved by
a person who may not even be an aggrieved party. The
pronouncement to the above effect was reiterated and followed by this
Court in the cases of (i) Al Jahad Trust through Raees-ul-Mujahidin
Habibul Wahabul Khairi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD
1996 SC 324), (ii) Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of
Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
Islamabad and others (PLD 1998 SC 161); and (iii) Captain retired
Muhammad Naseem Ejazi v. Province of Punjab (2000 SCMR 1720)
It is, thus, to be observed that this Court has consistently held that a
writ of quo warranto can be instituted by a person though he may not
come within the meaning of word aggrieved person. In this view of
the matter this objection is overruled.”

6. That similarly, in Para 49 and 50 of Munir Ahmed v Federation of

Pakistan (2018 CLC 530), honourable Justice Shahid Karim of this High
Court held:
 Para. 49: “The counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 4 made a flanking
rather than a frontal attack on the standing of the petitioner to
secure judicial review of the appointment of Chairman PEMRA. In
seeking a relief under Article 199 (1) (b)(ii) of the Constitution, there
is no requirement that a party seeking review must allege facts
showing that he is himself adversely affected nor does it insulate
executive action from judicial review, nor any public interest from
being protected through the judicial process.”

Para. 50. “Thus with regard to the relief claimed under this provision
[Art. 199 (b)(ii)], the framers had liberalized rules of standing in
mind and did not fetter it by the traditional rules. The court will not
seek proof of direct injury”

7. That the detailed arguments concerning the grievance of the Petitioner are
given below:

Petitioner is Aggrieved as a Citizen of Pakistan and Resident of

Punjab:
8. That Petitioner is aggrieved as a citizen of Pakistan and Resident of
Punjab whose fundamental rights, Art. 9 (Right to Life); Art. 10
(Safeguards as to arrest and detention); Art. 10A. (Right to fair trial)
and Art. 14 (Inviolability of dignity of man, etc.) are jeopardized by a
compromised, partisan and inefficient law enforcement institutions. A
malfunctioning executive, which primarily relies on a police force for
enforcement of laws, cannot effectively and adequately ensure the guaranties
extended by Article 4 of the Constitution, i.e., Right of individual to be dealt
in accordance with law and to enjoy protection of law.

Interested in the Enforcement of Law as a Citizen of Pakistan:

9. That this honourable court has held that “In case of the litigation, pro bono
publico, a very strict interpretation of the term, an aggrieved person is not
appreciated. Any person interested in performance of the functions by
the concerned authorities in a lawful manner, may move the Court.”.
Below is a a detailed excerpt from Government of Punjab v. Naeem Sarwar-
2011 YLR 3087 (2 member bench):

Para. 2: The respondent Naeem Sarwar filed Writ Petition No.2040 of

2011 praying that the appellants be directed to destroy the damaged
 wheat. The agreement signed to be declared void. This Court through
the impugned order accepted the petition, set aside the agreements
regarding the rotten and poisonous wheat and directed the
Government of Punjab to invite restricted bids from the brick-kiln
owners only and to arrange its disposal by burning in the brick-kilns.
3. It is contended by the learned A.A.-G. appearing for the appellants
that the petition was not maintainable as the  petitioner was not an
aggrieved person ; that the wheat could be used for consumption
by the animals without exposing them to any serious health hazard
and it could be so done it' the public at large was given a chance to
participate in the auction.

Para. 5. In case of the litigation, pro bono publico, a very strict

interpretation of the term, an aggrieved person is not appreciated.
Any person interested in performance of the functions by the
concerned authorities in a lawful manner, may move the Court.

Aggrieved as an Advocate/Officer of the Court:

10.That the Petitioner is Aggrieved as an Advocate/Officer of the Court. The
honourable Supreme Court and this Court itself on numerous occasions
stressed upon the need to reform the criminal justice system and emphasized
on Police Reforms. Courts of law cannot ensure fair trial and expeditious
justice if the Police force does not perform its part of the job. Investigation
of a crime is police‘s responsibility. The honourable Supreme Court in
Haider Ali vs. DPO Chakwal (2015 SCMR 1724) held in Para 9:
Para 3. It would be an under statement to say that the state of our
criminal justice system which led to this case, and many others like it,
is deficient. The majority of human right cases which come before us
concern in one way or another police abuse of powers or inefficiency.

“9.  the high degree of political and administrative apathy which has
translated into the failing criminal justice system before us…It also
needs to be emphasized that a functioning criminal justice system is
directly linked to the enforcement and realization of various
fundamental rights of citizens such as Articles 9, 10, 10A and 14.”
Aggrieved As a representative of the people and Elected
Member of the Provincial Assembly:
11.Petitioners constituents are impacted by the quality of policing in Punjab and
Kasur. As an MPA of Prov. Assembly who is supposed to hold the
Cabinet/Executive accountable, the Impugned actions and non-constitution
of Provincial Public Safety Commission and non-inclusion of provincial
legislators, especially members from the opposition for ensuring democratic
accountability of the Police is a violation of Police Order and parliamentary
form of government, in which the cabinet/executive is responsible to the
Provincial Assembly, as stipulated expressly in sub-clause (6) of Article
130 of the Constitution. In order to promote democratic oversight and
across the board accountability and to guard against victimization of
political opponents, the Provincial Public Safety Commission has
representation from the Provincial Assembly from amongst its members
three each from the treasury and opposition (Article 74 of Police
Order). The Petitioner, being a member of the Provincial Assembly, has
been denied his statutory right to hold the Police force accountable due to
non-constitution of the Public Safety Commission

12.That the Applicant/Petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss unless this

application is not allowed to place the aforementioned additional documents
and submissions on the record of the titled Petition pending adjudication
before this Court.

PRAYER:

In view of the above, it is, respectfully, prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may very graciously be pleased to allow the Applicant/Petitioner to place the
aforementioned additional documents and submissions on the record of the
titled Petition pending adjudication before this honourable Court; and
Grant such other relief as may be warranted in the interest of justice and equity.
________________________________________
   APPLICANT/PETITIONER
 ______________________________________________________________

MALIK MUHAMMAD AHMAD KHAN,

Advocate High Court

LLB (University of Buckingham)

ADDRES: 1st Floor, Al Shafi Residency, Zafar Ali Road, Opposite Gym Khana, Gulberg V, Lahore.
+92 321 289 4404; usama.khawar@columbia.edu;
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
(Constitutional Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. ______________ / 2020

Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan Versus Federation of
Pakistan & Others
WRIT PETITION U/ART. 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, s/o Malik Muhammad Ali R/O
Khai Hithar P.O. Same, Tehsil & District Kasur
_______________________________________________________

I, the above named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on

oath as under:

The Deponent/Applicant has filed the accompanying application

before this Hon’ble Court today. The Deponent/Applicant shall
suffer an irreparable loss unless this application is not allowed. It is
expedient and in the interest of justice that the Deponent/Applicant
may kindly be allowed to place the documents on record.

DEPONENT

Verification:
Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ day of September, 2020,
that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT