PLJ 2011
[
Present:
Asad Munir, J.
MUZAMMAL
AHMED KHAN--Petitioner
versus
IMRAN
MEER etc.--Respondents
W.P.
No. 2774 of 2009, decided on 15.1.2010.
Writ
of Quo Warranto--
----A
writ of quo warranto though a
prerogative writ like other writs of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition
is a different specie with its own peculiar features which are also recognized
by Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of Constitution of Pakistan. [P. 8] A
Constitution
of
----Art.
199(1)(b)(ii)--Writ of quo warranto--Distinguishes
from other prerogative writs--Distinguishes a writ of quo warranto
from the other prerogative writs is that it can be sought by any person even
though he is not aggrieved. [P. 8] B
Writ
of Quo Warranto--
----Quo
warranto--Applicability--A writ of quo warranto is directed against a person who holds a public
office whereas the other writs only lie against a person performing functions
in connection with the affairs of the federation or province or local
authority. [P. 8] C
Writ
of Quo Warranto--
----Scope
& object of--A writ of quo warranto is confined
to the limited object of an inquiry into the appointment of a person holding a
public office to show under what authority of law the incumbent claims hold
that office whereas the other writs seem to be wider in scope as they seek
relief in respect of an act which is either to be refrained from for being not
permitted by law or to be done for being required by law or to be declared to
be without lawful authority. [P.
8] D
Writ
of Quo Warranto--
----Involvement
the issue was more in nature of a public interest
litigation--Where undoing of a wrong or vindication of a right was sought by an
individual not for himself but for the good of society or as a matter of
principle. [P. 9] E
Public
Office--
----Director
of a public company holds a public office--Company cannot be regarded as person
performing functioning in connection with the affairs of Federation or
Province--In order to constitute public office of petitioner requisite
condition--Validity--A writ is not maintainable against PTV by its employees
because their rules of service are not statutory rules do not deal with the
question as to whether or not PTV falls within definition of a person
performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. [P. 11] F
Constitution
of
----Art.
199(1)(b)(ii)--Maintainability of writ of quo warranto--Post
of Head of News and current affairs channel at PTV News--Ministry for
Information & Broadcasting had no authority or power to issue directive for
appointment--Respondent was appointed without giving due publicity through
public media in violation of constitutional requirement--Question of--Whether
writ can lie against PTV--Legality of appointment--PTV is performing a public
service in the public interest and any of its employees who holds a substantive
office, as does respondent is the holder of a public office--Held: A writ of
quo warranto is maintainable against respondent as
all the conditions mentioned in Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of
the Constitution do appear to be present. [P.
13] G
Constitution
of
----Art.
199(1)(b)(ii)--Writ of quo warranto--Appointment as
Head of News & Current Affairs Channel at PTV News on contract--Challenge
to--Grounds--Post does not exist in PTV Service Rules, 1977--Ministry for
Information and Broadcasting had no authority or power to issue directive for
appointment--Respondent was appointed secretively without giving due publicity
through public media in violation of constitutional requirements--Service Rules
does not allow PTV to appoint a person without due
publicity--Validity--Appointment could have been justified to some extent if it
was made openly and transparently after giving other candidates a chance to
complete and be considered--Lack of transparency in the appointment makes it a
case of undue favoritism not only to prejudice of existing employees of PTV but
also outsiders, who may claim to have qualifications to fill the post--It was
not for High Court to undertake an assessment of the qualifications of
respondent to merit his appointment to impugned the post--Instances of past
appointments said to have been made by PTV in breach of its rules are hardly
relevant and cannot, in any case, justify the appointment in issue--Being in
breach of PTV Employees Service Rules both in letter and in spirit, the
appointment also violates the Constitutional requirements and safeguards
outlined in Arts. 2-A & 18 of Constitution which cannot be brushed aside
while making an appointment to a public office--Further held: No hesitation in
declaring that the appointment to the post of Head of News & Current
Affairs Channel at PTV News has been made unlawfully and cannot be sustained--Petition
was allowed. [Pp. 15 & 16]
H, I & J
Dr.
G.S. Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
M/s.
Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Shahid Mahmood Khokar, Aftab Ahmad Khan, Azhar Maqbool Shah, Advocates for
Respondents.
Date
of hearing: 29.10.2009.
Judgment
The
petitioners, being in the service of Pakistan Television Corporation Limited
for the last 20 years or so, hold senior positions in the news section of the
Pakistan Television Corporation,
(i) The post of
Head of News and Current Affairs Channel at PTV-News, Islamabad does not exist
in the PTV Service Rules, 1977 nor does it exist in the organizational chart of
PTV and the appointment has been made without formally creating the post or its
grade as no rules were framed therefor which is in
violation of Serial No. 3 page 33 Esta Code 2000
which places an unqualified ban against making recruitment without framing the
recruitment rules for the same.
(ii) The Minister for Information &
Broadcasting had no authority or power to issue directive for the appointment
of Respondent No. 1 whose appointment is an instance of favoritism not valid
under law.
(iii) Respondent No. 1 was appointed
secretively without giving due publicity through public media in violation of
the constitutional requirements and safeguards.
(iv) The appointment of
Respondent No. 1 invalid for having been made by the Executive without the
recommendation of the Selection Board.
(v) The appointment of Respondent No. 1 is
unlawful for not having been made in the prescribed manner and is in breach of
the existing PTV Employees Service Rules ("Service Rules"), Rule 5.05
whereof requires that "recruitment to various cadres will be effected in
accordance with the laid down procedure on the basis of suitability and
qualifications of the various posts to be prescribed from time to time".
(vi) The appointment is also in
breach of Rule 6.08 of the Service Rules which provides that the serving
employees of PTV should be considered first for promotion to a higher post
before any outsider is considered.
(vii) The salary of Rs.700,000/-
per month alongwith other fringe benefits are
excessive, unreasonable and are not commensurate with the duties and functions
of the said post.
2.
However, the respondents have questioned the maintainability of the writ
petition as according to them no writ can lie against PTV as it is not a
statutory corporation but a public limited company and that although all its
shares are owned by the Federal Government, it does not receive any funds from
the Federal Government nor are its employees governed by any statutory rules of
service.
3.
It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that a writ
of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii)
is not maintainable against Respondent No. 1 who is not a person holding a
public office as he is neither a public or civil servant nor a person
performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a writ of quo warranto can be issued only when a person is appointed to a
post created by the State and not where he is appointed in a limited company,
which is by no means a department of the Government or an authority or body
created under a statute. On merits, the learned counsel has contended that
Respondent No. 1's contract employment has the sanction of the Rule 6.12 of the
Service Rules and that in any case a wide discretion is available to PTV to
appoint any one on contract basis as it may consider to be in its interest the
appointment of Respondent No. 1 has also been defended on the ground that he
has served in various premier news channels of Pakistan and that he holds the
necessary academic qualifications and the experience for appointment as Head of
News.
4.
I have given due consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for
the parties, who have forcefully expressed their respective viewpoints with the
support of case law.
5.
It is to be noted that a writ of quo warranto though
a prerogative writ like other writs of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition is a
different specie with its own peculiar features which are also recognized by
Article 199 (1)(b)(ii) of our Constitution. One of the key features that distinguishes a writ of quo warranto
from the other prerogative writs is that it can be sought by any person even
though he is not aggrieved. Another important characteristic that sets it apart
from the other writs is that a writ of quo warranto
is directed against a person who holds a public office whereas the other writs
only lie "against a person performing functions in connection with the
affairs of the Federation or Province or local authority". Furthermore, a
writ of quo warranto is confined to the limited
object of an inquiry into the appointment of a person holding a public office
to show under what authority of law the incumbent claims to hold that office
whereas the other writs seems to be wider in scope as they seek relief in
respect of an act which is either to be refrained from for being not permitted
by law or to be done for being required by law or to be declared to be without
lawful authority. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have
categorically stated that their grievance is not in respect of their own terms
and conditions of service but only against the appointment of Respondent No. 1.
As such, the question whether the petitioners are aggrieved or not is
irrelevant. In this regard, I refer to Hamdullah v Saifullah Khan (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52) and Gul Muhammad Hajano Vs.
Federation of Pakistan (2000 PLC (CS) 46) which support the view that a writ of
quo warranto can be maintained to question the
holding of a public office by an unqualified person at the instance of any
party as distinguished from an aggrieved party.
6.
While objecting to the maintainability of this writ petition against PTV, the
learned counsel for the respondents has cited a number of cases including Civil
Petition No. 1362 of 2009 and CP No. 331/2009, wherein it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the petitioners could not
raise any grievance arising out of their terms and conditions of service as
they were governed by the Service Rules, which being non-statutory could not be
enforced through a writ petition against PTV. I think the said decisions are
distinguishable as they only relate to the individual grievances of PTV employees
or ex-employees but none of them involve the issue of a writ of quo warranto which I believe is more in the nature of a public
interest litigation where undoing of a wrong or vindication of a right is
sought by an individual not for himself but for the good of the society or as a
matter of principle. In the present case also, the petitioners seek no material
relief for themselves as their writ petition is only directed at the
appointment of Respondent No. 1's which they regard as unlawful.
7.
The crucial issue which needs to be examined is as to whether the Respondent
No. 1 is the holder of a public office, an expression used in Article 199 of
the Constitution but not defined therein. In order to show that the appointment
of the Respondent No. 1 is not to a public office, learned counsel for the
respondents has relied upon judgment dated 9.3.2009 in W.P. No. 1080/2008,
passed by the erstwhile Islamabad High Court, whereby a petition for a writ of
quo warranto, challenging the appointment of
Controller Administration and Personnel, PTV, was dismissed on the ground that
the said person was not the holder of a public office in view of the definition
of "public officer" in Section 2(17) of CPC, "public
servant" under Section 21 (2) PPC and Section 2 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 as well as the definition of "Service of
Pakistan" given in Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution. It seems that
proper assistance was not rendered to the Court as the definition of
"Public Servant" given in Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1947, does include "an employee of a corporation or other body or
organization set up controlled or administered by or under the authority of the
Central Government". Even though the employee of a state-owned corporation
is included in the definition of a public servant given in Section 2 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, I think the term "holder of a public
office" has a much wider implication and import. In this regard, we may
refer to the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (No. XVIII of
1999), Section 5(m)(iv) whereof provides that:
"Holder
of Public Office" means a person who is holding, or has held, an office or
post in the service of Pakistan, or any service in connection with the affairs
of the Federation, or of a Province, or of a local council constituted under
any Federal or Provincial law relating to the constitution of local councils,
or in the management of corporations, banks, financial institutions, firms,
concerns, undertakings or any other institution or organization established,
controlled or administered by or under the Federal Government or a Provincial
Government, other than a person who is a member of any of the armed forces of
Pakistan, or for the time being is subject to any law relating to any of the
said forces, except a person who is, or has been a member of the said forces
and is holding, or has held, a post or office in any public corporation, bank,
financial institution, undertaking or other organization established, controlled
or administered by or under the Federal Government or a Provincial
Government;"
8.
It is evident from the above definition that the holder of a public office,
inter alia, includes all those who are engaged in the
management of corporations, institutions or organizations established
controlled or administered by the Federal Government. Applying
this definition, the Respondent No. 1, who holds a senior management position
in the state-owned and controlled PTV, cannot but be described as the holder of
a public office.
9.
Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that
PTV is not state-funded and that in the absence of any funds received from the
Government, the officers of PTV cannot be described as holders of public
office. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on Hotel Metropole Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Sindh (PLD 1982 Karachi 810), where it was held that a
private limited company could not be notified as a public office under Section
33(3) of the Stamp Act, 1899. However, no material has been submitted to show
that PTV does not receive any funds from the Government. In any case, it is
common knowledge and experience that every television owner has to pay Rs.25
per month as PTV license fee which is being recovered as part of and through
the electricity bills issued by the government-owned electricity supply
companies. In the face of such monthly license fee being charged and received
by PTV, there is no doubt that PTV is being funded by the public at least to
the extent of the said fee. Even otherwise, the amenability of a state-owned
and controlled company to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution
is not merely dependant upon its receiving any funds from the Government. In
this respect, reference can be made to
10.
Relying on Masud ul-Hassan
v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1963
Supreme Court 203), it has also been pleaded that that the writ of quo warranto does not lie as the post of Respondent No. 1
cannot be termed as a public office for being not the creation of the State but
that of a limited company. Of course, a post or office created or funded by the
State is a public office but there is another dominant criterion, public
interest, in the presence of which an office may be regarded as a public office
even though it is not created or funded by the State. Reference may also be
made to Maqbool Elahi v.
Khan Abdul Rehman (PLD 1960 Supreme Court 266) and Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills (PLD 1975 Supreme Court
244) where while dealing with the issue of writ of quo warranto
it was held that the office of a director in a public limited company must be
regarded as a public office inasmuch as it involves performance of public
duties which are of the greatest importance to the public interest. It may be
noted that the writs of quo warranto sought in the
afore-mentioned two cases were in respect of directors of public limited
companies which were neither owned nor controlled by the Government. In Salahuddin Vs. Frontier Sugar Mills,
the Honourable Supreme Court went so far as to say
that a director of a public company holds a public office even though his
company cannot be regarded as person performing functions in connection with
the affairs of the Federation or the Province. One may also refer to Hotel Metropole Ltd. Vs. Government of Sindh, where the term "public office" has been
elaborately discussed and it is observed that;
"It
may be noticed the term public office or public officer may have different
meaning according to the enactment in which they are given. However, generally
in order to make an office public one, the pay must be given out of National
and not out of Local funds and the office must be public in the strict sense of
the term. A public officer must be said to be one who discharges duties, in
which the public are interested and if a person is paid out of fund provided by
the public, he is clearly a person holding such office.
It
may be observed that in order to constitute public office of the
petitioner-requisite condition is that the public should be directly interested
in the performance of the duties by such an officer. On the basis of the above
analogy, it can be said that in order to constitute an office as a public
office.(i.e. a public department) the public must be
interested in the function entrusted to it."
11.
I think the issue of public office or that of public interest is also
inextricably inter-linked with the status, role and functions of the Pakistan
Television Corporation where Respondent No. 1 holds his office. It may be
stated that the cases that have held that a writ is not maintainable against
PTV by its employees because their rules of service are not statutory rules do
not deal with the question as to whether or not PTV falls within the definition
of a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the
Federation. In order to know the role of PTV and the nature of its relationship
with the State, it would be relevant to refer to C.M.No.
76/09 in this Writ Petition No. 2774/2009 filed by the
respondents. The said application was filed to seek recall of this
Court's Order dated 5.10.2009 whereby the appointment of the petitioner was
suspended. Paras 11 and 12 of the said application
are relevant as they aptly describe the role of PTV and the proximity and
nature of its relationship with the State. The said paras
are reproduced below:--
"11.
PTVC is state owned organization and performing its duties according to the
direction of the State as State Media. PTVC earned revenue on behalf of State
and order of stop working will be harmful to Public Interest as it is state
duty to get the people informed about the happenings around the world. It is
(sic) telecast programmes of welfare and improvement
of social and national interest, therefore, if the
person working in News channel be restrained to work, it will be harmful to
State."
"12.
As the functions of PTVC are for the interest of State being State Media,
therefore no injunction can be granted in writ petition as envisaged in
sub-Article (4) (b) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan."
12.
The afore-mentioned statement of the Respondents illustrates that admittedly
PTV is not only created, owned and controlled by the Federal Government but is
also its agent as State Media performing a service in the public interest of
keeping people informed. Reference can also be made to Muhammad Aslam Salimi Vs. PTV Corporation
(PLD 1977 Lahore 852), where a full bench of this Court, issued a writ of
mandamus to PTV after holding that PTV was performing duties in the nature of
public service of providing people with balanced, accurate and impartial news
and that although PTV was not a statutory corporation but was incorporated as a
limited company, it was performing functions in connection with the affairs of
the Federation as it was owned and controlled by the Government. It was also
held that salaries of PTV employees were paid from Public Exchequer and that
the license fee for TV Sets was charged by PTV and that in the 1976-77 Budget,
a sum of Rs.63,83,000/- was sanctioned for investment in PTV. It was further
held that Article (III)(3) of the Memorandum of Association of PTV read with
Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 shows that PTV is controlled and run under the
directions of the Government. One may also refer to Federal Govt. Employees
Housing Foundation v. Muhammad Akram Alizai (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1079), wherein it was held
that Federal Government Employees Foundation, a company limited by guarantee,
had to be recognized as an official agency as it was functioning under the
control of the Federal Government and that the remedy of writ petition could be
availed by a person who is aggrieved of an act of the Foundation either in
relation to his right and entitlement of a plot or in any other matter of
public importance.
13.
The aforesaid discussion leads me to the conclusion that PTV is performing a
public service in the public interest and any of its employees who holds a
substantive office, as does Respondent No. 1, is the holder of a public office.
In view thereof, a writ of quo warranto is
maintainable against Respondent No. 1 as all the conditions mentioned in
Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution do appear to
be present.
14.
The next question which needs to be addressed is the legality of the
appointment of Respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioners is that Respondent
No. 2 has been appointed to the post in a clandestine manner by the Minister
without any prior advertisement of the vacancy which is not catered for by the
Service Rules, the organization chart and the recruitment policy of PTV.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Respondent No. 1 has
been appointed to a post which being contractual is outside the regular cadre
and that there is no bar in the Service Rules against such an appointment.
Reliance has been placed on Rule 6.04 of the Service Rules to contend that
outsiders can be appointed without following the normal requirement of prior
advertisement. It has also been pleaded by the learned counsel for respondents
that the Board of Directors of PTV in its 167th meeting held on
15.
An inquiry into the lawfulness of the appointment of Respondent No. 1 calls for
a reference to the Service Rules which appear to have been issued in 1977 and
have been amended from time to time. As per Rule 1.03, the Managing Director of
PTV, appointed by the Government and approved by the Board of Directors of PTV,
is the administrative and the executive head of PTV.
Rule 4.01 classifies the employees into various categories including permanent
employees and contract employees while Rule 4.10 splits the employees of PTV
into nine groups from Group 1 to Group 9. Rule 5.05 lays down that recruitment
to various cadres will be effected in accordance with the laid down procedure
on the basis of suitability and qualifications for various posts to be
prescribed from time to time. Rule 6.08 provides that existing employees, who
are potentially promotable to the vacant posts, shall
be first considered for appointments in Group-7 and above to be made by the
Managing Director on seniority-cum-suitability basis. Rule 6.04 visualizes the
appointment of an outsider if no suitable candidate is available from among the
serving employees but in such a case the vacancy has to be advertised or any
other procedure is to be adopted as is deemed to be in the best interests of
PTV by its Managing Director.
16.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also attempted to oppose the
maintainability of the writ on the ground that under Rule 15.06 of the PTV
Service Rules the remedy of an appeal to PTV's
Managing Director is available to an aggrieved person. Perusal of the said Rule
shows that such an appeal lies only in the context of an employee being
aggrieved by a decision affecting his terms and conditions of service. As such,
the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable as admittedly it is not
the case of the petitioners that they have a grievance in relation to their own
terms and conditions of service.
17.
Even though the PTV Employees Service Rules have no statutory force, PTV cannot
claim immunity from the said Rules which it has framed and which it has
consistently followed as a policy since 1977. Being an agency of the Federal
Government, PTV is expected to recognize and enforce its Rules in spirit if not
in letter or in substance if not in form as the said Rules reflect its policy
which is enforceable. In this regard, I draw support from Federal Government
Employees Housing Foundation v. Muhammad Akram Alizai (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1079) wherein it was
observed as under;
"We
may add that Housing Foundation while acting as an official Organization, has
framed a policy to regulate its business as per its declaration made in the
Memorandum and Articles of Association and despite the fact that the said
policy has no statutory force, still the organization would be bound by its
policy which is being implemented and followed as departmental instructions of
the controlling ministry and mandatory rule, therefore, the violation of said
policy would be challengeable in the High Court in its Constitutional
jurisdiction."
Again
in Muhammad Insha Ullah v.
Chief Conservator of Forests,
18.
Evidently, Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to have been appointed by the Board
of Directors or the Managing Director of PTV as he has been appointed under the
directive of the Federal Minister for Information. Admittedly, the appointment
in question was made to a post not provided for by the Rules or the
organization chart of PTV issued by PTV copy of which is attached as Appendix-C
to the writ petition. It is also undisputed that the appointment was made
without publicity, thus denying others the opportunity to apply and be
considered for the post. Even Rule 6.04 of the Service Rules does not allow PTV
to appoint a person without due publicity as has been held in Syed Amjad Ali Shah Vs.
Federation of Pakistan wherein it was held if an appointment is to be made in
PTV including that of contract employee, such an appointment cannot be made in
secrecy under Rule 6.04 as all eligible persons are entitled to be considered
under Rule 6.03 of PTV Service Rules. The appointment of Respondent No. 1 could
have been justified to some extent if it was made openly and transparently
after giving other candidates a chance to compete and be considered. The lack
of transparency in the appointment of Respondent No. 1 makes it a case of undue
favoritism not only to the prejudice of the existing employees of PTV but also
outsiders, who may claim to have the qualifications to fill the post. It is not
for this Court to undertake an assessment of the qualifications of Respondent
No. 1 to merit his appointment to the post in question. The facts that have
emerged are that Respondent No. 1 has been appointed to a public office in a
manner lacking transparency by the Minister for Information & Broadcasting,
who instead of leaving it to the Board of Directors or the Managing Director of
PTV has himself made the appointment to a post which never existed before nor
is the said post provided for by the Service Rules or the organization chart of
Pakistan Television Corporation. The instances of past appointments said to
have been made by PTV in breach of its Rules are hardly relevant and cannot, in
any case, justify the appointment in issue.
19.
Apart from being in breach of the PTV Employees Service Rules both in letter
and in spirit, the impugned appointment also violates the constitutional
requirements and safeguards outlined in Articles 2-A and 18 of the Constitution
which cannot be brushed aside while making an appointment to a public office.
In this regard, it will be of benefit to refer to In re: Abdul Jabbar Memon and others (1996
SCMR 1349) and Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Naseem Hejazi Vs. Province of
Punjab (2000 SCMR 1720) where the practice of making appointments without
properly advertising vacancies and without giving opportunity to others to
compete for the post was declared to be unlawful and violative
of Article 18 of the Constitution. I may also refer to Mushtaq
Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Hon'ble
Lahore High Court Lahore & others (1997 SCMR 1043), where any appointment
made without advertisement of vacancy was held to be a violation of Articles 18
and 2A of the Constitution and it was observed as under:
"the
Constitutional requirement, inter alia, enshrined in
Article 18 of the Constitution which enjoins that "Subject to such
qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have
the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any
lawful trade or business" includes the right of a citizen to compete and participate
for appointment to a post in any Federal or a Provincial Government department
or any attached department or autonomous bodies/corporations etc. on the basis
of open competition, which right he cannot exercise unless the process of
appointment is transparent, fair, just and free from any complaint as to its
transparency and fairness. The objective enshrined in the Constitution cannot
be achieved unless due publicity is made through public notice for inviting
applications with the aid of the leading newspaper having wide
circulation."
21.
Consequently, I have no option but to hold that Respondent No. 1 has been
unable to show the authority of law under which he holds the post of Head of
News & Current Affairs Channel at PTV-News, Islamabad, as such, his appointment
made and conveyed by Pakistan Television Corporation Limited vide its letter
dated May 7, 2009 is also without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
(R.A.) Petition
allowed.