Taqveem Shah V. Government of Balochistan and 2 others,
Bench: Zaheer Ud Din Kakar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case from the Balochistan High Court dealt with a challenge to the government's decision to hire a retired civil servant, Abdul Wahid Kakar, on a two-year contract as Senior Coordination Officer for CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) in the Chief Secretary's Office. The petitioner, Taqveem Shah, filed a constitutional petition seeking what is known as a writ of quo warranto, essentially asking the court to question the legal authority behind this appointment.
The central issue the court examined was whether Shah had the legal standing to bring this challenge at all. Under Pakistan's Constitution, only an "aggrieved person" can file such a petition. The court explained that to qualify as aggrieved, a person must show that some personal right or interest of theirs was directly affected by the decision being challenged, not just a general objection to how government business is conducted.
The court found that Shah failed to demonstrate any personal stake in the matter. He could not show that the appointment violated any right belonging to him or caused him any personal loss, disadvantage, or harm. Citing several precedents from Pakistani and Indian courts, the judges emphasized that constitutional courts exist to resolve real disputes affecting genuine rights, not to entertain challenges from parties with no direct connection to the issue.
Because Shah did not meet this threshold, the court dismissed his petition outright, without going into the merits of whether the appointment itself was proper. The case underscores the importance of legal standing as a gatekeeping requirement in public interest lit
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ کا یہ مقدمہ حکومت کے اس فیصلے کے خلاف چیلنج سے متعلق تھا جس میں ایک ریٹائرڈ سرکاری افسر عبدالواحد کاکڑ کو چیف سیکرٹری آفس میں سی پیک (چائنا پاکستان اکنامک کوریڈور) کے سینئر کوآرڈینیشن آفیسر کے طور پر دو سالہ کنٹریکٹ پر بھرتی کیا گیا تھا۔ درخواست گزار تقویم شاہ نے آئینی درخواست دائر کی جس میں "رٹ آف کو وارنٹو" کی استدعا کی گئی تھی، یعنی عدالت سے یہ استفسار کیا گیا کہ اس تقرری کے پیچھے قانونی اختیار کیا تھا۔
عدالت نے جس بنیادی سوال کا جائزہ لیا وہ یہ تھا کہ آیا شاہ کو یہ چیلنج پیش کرنے کا قانونی حق (لیگل اسٹینڈنگ) بھی حاصل تھا یا نہیں۔ پاکستان کے آئین کے تحت صرف "متاثرہ شخص" ہی ایسی درخواست دائر کر سکتا ہے۔ عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ متاثرہ شخص قرار پانے کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ درخواست گزار یہ ثابت کرے کہ زیرِ چیلنج فیصلے سے
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.