Nisar Ahmad Vs NADRA etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(ludicial Department) A.W.P. No.97-412023

Nisar Ahmed.

(Petitioner/s)

VS

Registrar General of Pakistan (Chairman I{ADRA) Head ffice Islamabad and others.

(Respondent/s)

Present Haji Ghulam Basit, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arbab lfrahim, AAG, for respondents along with Mr. Jawad Ahmed, Law Officer,

NADRA,

Date of hearing: 22.04.2025

JUDGMENT

SADIO ALL J.- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner sought to refrain respondents respondent No.

5 from carrying out any proceedings, to get DLC proforma, or to block the identify Card of the d$ petitioner or to launch any enquiry time and again in connection with paternity of the petitioner through any agency.

) Precisely stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner t

is the son of Muhammad Shoaib. However, this fact was disputed by the petitioner's paternal uncle during the lifetime of his father by instituting a suit for declaration, wherein he challenged the petitioner's parentage. This suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mansehra, vide order dated 16.01 .2003.

Subsequently, another suit bearing No. 27611was also filed, which met the same fate and was dismissed.

Thereafter, yet another suit bearing No. 136ll was instituted. Although the present petitioner moved an application for rejection of the plaint, the suit was not dismissed at that stage. The matter was eventually brought before this Court, which, vide judgment dated 29.04.2018, accepted the petitioner's writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and rejected the plaint. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed on 29.10.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed ,o}, Writ Petition Nos. 435118 and 58112 before this Court against the respondents, which were decided in his favour on 24.04.2012. Despite these decisions, respondent No. 5 / District Level Committee (DLC) has obtained the DLC proforma from the petitioner and has summoned him on 26.01.2023 for an inquiry

regarding an issue that has already been adjudicated.

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.Arguments of the learned counsel for parties were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.

!. The record would show that the present writ petition arises from a situation where the petitioner is being unnecessarily and unlawfully dragged into proceedings regarding an issue that has already been conclusively adjudicated by competent Courts of law. The petitioner asserts that he is the son of Muhammad Shoaib, and this parentage was disputed by his paternal uncle during the lifetime of his father through a civil suit for declaration. That suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mansehra, on 16.01.2003. This judgment laid to rest any doubts about the petitioner's lineage. Despite this, another civil suit bearing No.276ll was filed to challenge the same fact, but it too met the same fate and was d$ dismissed. Subsequently, yet another suit, bearing No.

136ll, was instituted on similar grounds. The petitioner filed an application for rejection of plaint, which was initially declined by the trial court.

However, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble High

Court which, vide judgment dated 29.04.2018, accepted the writ petition of the petitioner, set aside the impugned orders, and rejected the plaint. The judgment of the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No. 3013 of 2019 but was dismissed on 29.10.2021, thereby giving finality to the matter.

5.Furthermore the petitioner has also brought to light that he had previously filed Writ Petitions No. 435118 and 58112 before this Hon'ble Court against the respondents on related matters, and both were decided in his favor on 24.04.2012. These decisions further validated his position and strengthened the finality of the issue concerning his parentage and legal identity. The continued judicial endorsement of the petitioner's lawful claim underscores the legal certainty surrounding the matter. t

Thus, any funher inquiry or reconsideration into this d$ settled issue is not only unwarranted but also a direct affront to the sanctity and authority of the court's judgments.

0 It is both surprising and legally troubling that despite such conclusive decisions by various tiers of the judiciary, respondent No. 5, i.e., the District

Level Committee (DLC), is now re-initiating a fresh inquiry into the same matter under the guise of reviewing the petitioner's DLC proforma and has sunrmoned him on 26.01.2023. The actions of the DLC amount to a blatant overreach of its authority and demonstrate a complete disregard for established judicial orders. Once a matter is settled through due process of law and affirmed by the superior courts, it cannot be re-agitated by any administrative or quasi- judicial body. The principle of finality in litigation is a comerstone of our legal system. It is not only rooted in constitutional safeguards but also upheld time and again in judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various landmark cases has laid down the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the same issue between the same parties from being tried again. It is binding on all forums and cannot be revisited on the same grounds.

Z In the instant case, the principle of res judicata is squarely attracted. The question regarding d/ the petitioner's parentage has been directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings between the same parties and has been conclusively decided.

Moreover, the decisions were passed by competent

courts having jurisdiction and were affirmed up to the Supreme Court level. Therefore, the DLC's attempt to question the very same fact through an administrative process is not only devoid of legal basis but also amounts to contempt of court orders.

E. This continuous harassment of the petitioner through repeated legal and administrative proceedings is a clear violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan.

Article 4 ensures that every citizen shall be dealt with in accordance with the law, and not otherwise. Article 9 protects the right to life and liberty, and Article l0-A guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process.

Reopening a closed matter that has been judicially resolved multiple times clearly infringes upon these constitutional rights.

2.It is pertinent to highlight that the DLC is neither a Court of law nor a body with adjudicatory d powers. It has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over decisions made by civil courts or the High Court. Its primary role is administrative, and it cannot lawfully override or disregard findings of competent judicial forums. By entertaining the same issue that has been

conclusively settled, the DLC has overstepped its bounds and acted in excess of its lawful authority.

10.Moreover, such administrative overreach has the potential to create legal chaos and undermine public confidence in the judicial system. If administrative authorities are allowed to reopen cases decided by the courts, it will defeat the purpose of litigation and lead to a never-ending cycle of disputes.

The law seeks finality and certainty in disputes, and this fundamental objective must be upheld at all costs.

In the case of "Waheed Butt vs. The Secretarv, Revenue Division. Islamabad' reported as 2019 PTD 141 it has been held that "the High Court being a Constitutional Court shall take precedence over q quasi-judicial forum and ultimately its verdict would holdfield". In the case of "W vs. The State" reported as PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore N 333 it has been held that "an administrative matter be open to scrutiny by any Judge or a Bench of Judges of this Court unless on appectl is provided for against them, the same sanctity does not attach to his orders passed in an administrative capacity with regard to a judicial matter".

11.In light of the facts and the consistent findings of the courts in favor of the petitioner, it is evident that the call issued by the DLC for inquiry on 26.01.2023 is legally untenable and amounts to abuse of process. This Hon'ble Court cannot allow such blatant disregard of its own judgments and must intervene to ensure that the legal rights of the petitioner are protected and that the dignity of the judicial process is preserved. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and respondents are from initiating any further proceedings on this issue which stands judicially concluded

Announced

Tahir Saleem

J DGE

I#/c' (OA1 Ur. Justice Muhammad Faheem Ll'ali and Mr. Justice Sadiq Ali