P L D 1996 LAHORE 238
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Per Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Article 90, 99, 199
R/w Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)—-S. 4(2)—-
I have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have perused the record. As per provisions of section 4, subjection (2) of the Ordinance, the Federal Government has the power to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another. Notification dated 25-4-1995 issued by the Federal Government meets the requirement of section 4, subsection (2), whereby respondent No. 2 has been asked to distribute the work so that some casses should be tried by respondent No.3, which is a Tribunal of equal jurisdiction. It is in pursuance of this Notification that respondent No.2 had transferred the suit from his file to the file of respondent No.3, therefore, it cannot be said that it is respondent No.2 who has ordered transfer of the case from his Court and not the Federal Government. Argument as such being misconceived is repelled.[p. 242, 243]A
As regards argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only under particular conditions the cases could have been transferred by the Federal Government, suffice it to say that convenience is one of the grounds on the basis whereof a transfer can be made and as lot many cases were pending before the one Tribunal distribution of the work shall definitely cause convenience to the litigant public as well by providing of speedy justice, therefore, it cannot be said that the Federal Government has exercised jurisdiction in illegal manner. The decisions rendered in W.Ps. Nos. 13983 and 13984 of 1995 fully support the above-taken view on this score as well. It is well established a legal proposition that a decision of a lis by a particular forum is not prerogative of a litigant if there are various forums of equal jurisdiction, the competent authority has the power to transfer/distribute the work from one forum to another and it will neither result in causing of prejudice to the litigant nor could it be said that any vested right of the litigant has been adversely affected. Refer cases of Adnan Afzal and Nabi Ahmad (supra).
Resultantly, I see no force in this petition, hence the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.[p. 243]B