2021 C L C 985
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, JJ
TAQVEEM SHAH ----Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and 2 others ----Respondents
C.P. No.1350 of 2020, decided on 23rd December, 2020.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art.199--- Constitutional petition ---Writ of quo warranto---Maintainability ---"Aggrieved
person" ---Locus standi ---Scope ---Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent after his
retirement on contract basis in an Authority which was a body c orporate ---Validity ---Person
could not be said to be an 'aggrieved person' unless he had a right in performance of statutory
duty by a person performing functions in respect of any right which he could have in relation to performance of such function---Any person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High
Court had to establish direct or indirect injury to himself and his substantial interest in subject matter ---To satisfy requirement of 'aggrieved person' in public interest litigation
under Art.199 of the Constitution, petitioner needed to have disclosed a personal interest in
performance of legal duty owed to him which if not preformed would result in loss of some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege in liberty or franchise ---High
Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner did not fall within the definition of an 'aggrieved person' and he had not locus standi to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Ahbah Coopera tive Housing Society Ltd. v. Commissioner, Lahore Division PLD
1978 Lah. 273; Jan Muhammad v. Government of N.W.F.P. 1993 CLC 1067; Ardeshir Kowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC) Karachi 1999 SCMR 2883; Tasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578; Abdul Majeed v. Deputy Commissioner Sialkot 1991 CLC 1995; Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Kar. 9 and Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455 rel.
Inayat ullah Kasi and Masood Tareen for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 15th December, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ----Through this Constitution Petition, the petitioner
has challenged the Notification No.8- 6/2019/SO -I (S&GAD), dated 12.04.2019 issued by the
Government of Balochistan, Services and Gen: Admn: Department, whereby respondent
No.3/Mr. Abdul Wahid Kakar (Retired BCS/BS -19) has been appointed as Senior
Coordination Officer, CPEC in Chief Secretary Office, Balochistan on contract basis for a period of two years.
2. Heard arguments and perused the record.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for determination in this Constitution
Petition is, as to whether the petitioner is an 'aggrieved person' from the Notification No.8-6/2019/SO -1(S&GAD), dated 12.04.2019 issued by the respondent(s), whereby Mr. Abdul
Wahid Kakar (Retired BCS/BS -19) has been appointed on contract basis as Senior
Coordination Officer, CPEC in Chief Secretary Office, Balochistan and the petitioner has locus standi to f ile the instant Constitution Petition? In this regard, it is observed that under
Article 199 of the Constitution, a petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy as to how the petitioner is an 'aggrieved person' pressing for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against contract employment of a retired Government Servant (respondent No.3) in CPEC Authority established under Section 3 of the China -Pakistan Economic Corridor Authority Ordinance, 2019 (hereinafter "the
Ordinance"). Section 3(2) of the Ordinance reveals that CPEC Authority is a body corporate.
4. A person cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' unless he has a right in the
performance of statutory duty by a person performing functions in respect of any right which
he may have in relation to the performance of such function. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Ahbab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Commissioner, Lahore Division
PLD 1978 Lahore 273. Likewise, a person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court must establish direct or indirect injury to himself and his substantial interest in the subject matter. Reference in this regard is made to the ease of Jan Muhammad v. Government of N.W.F.P. 1993 CLC 1067.
5. To satisfy the requirements of an 'aggrieved person' in public interest litigation under
Article 199 of the Constitution; the petitioner needs to disclose a personal interest in the performance of legal duty owed to him which if not performed would res ult in the loss of
some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege in liberty or franchise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ardeshir Kowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC) Karachi 1999 SCMR 2883 .
6. Furthermore, there is a wisdom in the use of word 'aggrieved' appearing in Article 199
of the Constitution because it helps in checking litigation for the sake of litigation by those who may not be aggrieved. So, that the Courts are confronted with re al questions which
should occupy their attention and not question which are academic in nature involving political issues and where the issuance of a writ is mere futile exercise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tasbhai Motibhai Desai v. R oshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578.
7. At least the petitioner is duty bound to tell this Court beyond what was said
rhetorically by him whether any of his proprietary or personal rights had been invaded by the
said Notification and thus, he had a locus standi. R eference in this regard is made to the
cases of Abdul Majeed v. Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot 1991 CLC 1995 and Abdul Mujeeb
Pirzada v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Karachi 9.
8. Besides, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to establi sh locus
standi in the context of public interest litigation, the petitioner would have to show that he belongs to class of affected persons who are unable to access the Court for the protection of their rights. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cas e of Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and
others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455.
9. The petitioner does not fall within the definition of an 'aggrieved person' and he has
no locus standi to file the instant Constitution Petition to challenge the Notification dated
12.04.2019.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Constitution Petition is dismissed in limine.
MH/33/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.