P L D 1991 LAHORE 433
MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND OTHERS
Per Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramaday, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 90, 99, 129, 139.
A bare perusal of Articles 90 and 99, in case of the Federation and Articles 129 and 139 of Constitution, in case of Provinces, would reveal that the members or the officers of the Executive do not have any inherent, constitutional or legal authority in exercise executive power. The same vests in the President and the Governors, as the case may be, who then have power to authorize the officers subordinate to them, to exercise the powers allocated to them according to the Constitution, the law and the Rules.[p. 447]F
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1983), Articles. 176, 191, 192, 202, 90, 99, 129 & 139.
But Article 176 and 191 in case of the Supreme Court and Article and 202 in case of the High Courts would demonstrate that the scheme envisaged by the Constitution for discharge of Judicial functions is not similar but is in fact totally different from scheme relating to the Executive authority.[p. 448]G
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 192 & 202
Having thus examined all the Constitutional and legal provisions as also the Rules, I find that being Judge of the High Court, I have the jurisdiction to exercise all the powers which are exercisable by the High Court and which includes the powers conferred on the High Court by Sections 435, 439, 497(5) and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since there is no provision in the Rules and Orders of the High Court prescribing the manner in which a Judge has to exercise the SUO MOTU jurisdiction vesting in the High Court, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no clog on my power to deal with such a matter without the same having been formally entrusted to me and I hold accordingly. [p. 448]H,I.