Abdul Rasheed V. the Secretary Local Government Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others,
Bench: Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case was about a resident of the Sariab area in Quetta who repeatedly asked the courts to ensure a promised football ground and sports facilities were actually built for his community. Years earlier, authorities including the Commissioner Quetta and the Administrator of Metropolitan Corporation Quetta had identified a specific piece of land for this purpose and formally told the High Court, on record, that they had no objection to using it for a football ground. This project was even included in the government's official development budget (PSDP) for 2021-2022. Despite these clear commitments, the Corporation kept delaying, tried to get its earlier "no objection" statement erased from the court record, and later attempted a review of the court's order, all of which failed. The petitioner even filed a contempt case before bringing this fresh constitutional petition.
The High Court held that the constitutional right to "life" under Article 9 is not limited to bare survival but includes amenities and facilities that allow people to live with dignity, which can include recreational and sports facilities. Since the Corporation had already agreed to the project and it was budgeted for, the court ruled that its later excuses were an attempt to frustrate its own earlier commitments and the court's orders. The petition was allowed, and authorities were directed to hand over the land for the football ground as originally approved. This case matters because it shows courts can enforce promises made by public authorities and treat public infrastructure like sports facilities as part of citizens' fundamental rights.
یہ مقدمہ کوئٹہ کے سریاب علاقے کے ایک رہائشی سے متعلق تھا جس نے بار بار عدالتوں سے استدعا کی کہ اس کے علاقے کے لیے وعدہ کیے گئے فٹبال گراؤنڈ اور کھیلوں کی سہولیات کو حقیقت میں تعمیر کرایا جائے۔ برسوں پہلے کمشنر کوئٹہ اور میٹروپولیٹن کارپوریشن کوئٹہ کے ایڈمنسٹریٹر سمیت حکام نے اس مقصد کے لیے ایک مخصوص زمین کی نشاندہی کی تھی اور ہائی کورٹ کو باضابطہ طور پر، ریکارڈ پر، یہ بتایا تھا کہ اس زمین کو فٹبال گراؤنڈ کے لیے استعمال کرنے پر انہیں کوئی اعتراض نہیں۔ یہ منصوبہ سال 2021-2022 کے حکومتی ترقیاتی بجٹ (پی ایس ڈی پی) میں بھی شامل کیا گیا تھا۔ ان واضح وعدوں کے باوجود کارپوریشن مسلسل تاخیر کرتی رہی، اس نے اپنے پہلے دیے گئے "عدم اعتراض" کے بیان کو عدالتی ریکارڈ سے حذف کروانے کی کوشش کی، اور بعد میں عدالت کے حکم پر نظرثانی کی درخواست بھی دی، مگر یہ سب کوششیں ناکام رہیں۔ درخواست گزار نے اس
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2024 C L C 556 [Balochistan] Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J ABDUL RASHEED---- Petitioner Versus The SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA and 4 others ----Respondents C.P. No.1895 of 2022, decided on 9th May, 2023. Constitution of Pakistan --- ----Arts.9 & 199--- Constitutional petition ---Life, right of ---Scope ---Playgrounds and sports facilities ---Non -implemention of earlier decision ---Petitioner was aggrieved of failure to provide playgrounds and sports facilities to the area of his locality---Validity ---Word "life" used in Art. 9 of the Constitution is not restricted only to be vegetative or animal life or for that matter to mere existence from conception to death ---Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally ---Property belonging to Metropolitan Corporation was marked by authorities for establishing a football ground ---Project of football ground was reflected in Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) for year 2021- 2022---Such issue could be resolved by authorities amicably as there was no objection upon establishment of football ground---In view of such statement, subsequent excuses made by Metropolitan Corporation did not carry any weight as the Corporation was trying to frustrate orders passed by High Court by resiling from previous statement made on its behalf ---High Court directed the authorities to hand over land in question for establishing football ground which was already approved in PSDP -- -Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 292 and Moulvi Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority PLD 2006 SC 394 rel. Abdul Razzaq Shar for Petitioner. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Muhammad Ishaq Nasar, assised by Abdullah Khilji, Law Officer, Metropolitan Corporation Quetta (MCQ) for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 29th March, 2023. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J. ----In this petition, the petitioner, in the interest of public at large, has highlighted the importance of playgrounds and lack of sports facilities and healthy activities in Quetta City, particularly in Sariab area, due to insufficiency of proper grounds. The petition carries the following prayer: "In view of the above submissions made here -in-before, it is humbly prayed that in the larger interest of justice, fair play, this Honourable Court maybe pleased to pass directions to the respondents for establishment of football ground, in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate in the attending circumstances of the case, may also be awarded."
2. The record transpires that the petitioner had previously filed Constitution Petition No.232/2020 before this Court on the same subject. On 09.12.2020, the following order was passed by this Court: "The learned AAG submitted a report on behalf of the Commissioner/Project Director Quetta. Which states that a piece of land belonging to the Metropolitan Corporation at Sariab, has been identified for the establishment of football ground. The Commissioner Quetta has assured that he will contact with the Administrator Metropolitan Corporation Quetta in respect of provision of land for the establishment of football ground. In view of statement so made by the learned AAG, the petitioner is satisfied for the time being. Thus in view of above the petition is disposed. The Commissioner Quetta and the Administrator Metropolitan Corporation Quetta should consider establishment of football ground at the proposed site. The Commissioner Quetta should submit a report before the Registrar of this court for our perusal in chamber."
3. In the light of aforementioned order and considering the statement of the Administrator, Metropolitan Corporation Quetta ('MCQ'), subsequently the petitioner had filed CMA No.1571/2021 in Constitution Petition No.232/2020 for implementation of the aforementioned order. On 29.06.2021, the said CMA was disposed of by this Court in the following terms: "The Administrator, MCQ stated that the property belonging to the Corporation has been marked by the Commissioner Quetta Division, Quetta and the Project Director for Establishment of Football ground and the project has been reflected in the year PSDP of the year 2021 -22. He stated that issue would be resolved by him and the Commissioner amicably, whereas he will have no objection upon establishment of the football ground. He, however stated that Corporation be permitted to utilize rest of the property. The learned AAG and the petitioner showed no objection. Thus, in view of above the petition is disposed of. "
4. The record divulges that the Administrator MCQ had also filed C.M.A. No.2634/2021 in Constitution Petition No.232/2020, in which the following prayer was made: "It is therefore respectfully prayed that the observation with the regard that applicant has no objection over the establishment of the football ground may kindly be expunged from the Order dated 29- 06-2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."
5. Subsequently, the aforementioned application was not pressed by learned counsel for Administrator MCQ, therefore same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2021.
6. The Administrator MCQ had also filed Review Application No.40/2021 before this Court in which review of order dated 29.06.2021 passed by this Court in Constitution Petition No.232/2020 was sought. The said Review Application was dismissed by this Court on 08.11.2021, concluding para whereof is reproduced herein below: "2. The applicant has not denied his appearance before this Court nor he has denied the statement made before this Court in CP No. 232/2020 on 29.06.2021. The applicant has failed to raise any law point or any cogent reason to review the above order. In view of the above, no case is made out to review the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by this Court in CP No. 232/2020. For the above reasons, the application is dismissed in limine ".
7. The petitioner, prior to filing of the instant Constitution Petition, had also filed Contempt Application No.41/2022 before this Court which was withdrawn on 22.11.2022. For the facility of ready reference, the said order is reproduced herein below: "Learned counsel for the applicant is not pressing the instant Contempt Application for the time being contemplating to file Constitution Petition for redressal of grievance of the applicant in accordance with law. The contempt proceedings have not been pressed for the time being against the respondents is dismissed as withdrawn holding the applicant at liberty to file Constitution Petition afresh for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law".
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that on 29.06.2021, the Administrator MCQ, while appearing before this Court in Constitution Petition No.232/2020, had given statement that the land belonging to MCQ has been marked for establishment of football ground and the Project is reflected in PSDP of the financial year 2021- 22 and on the basis of said statement, CMA seeking implementation of order dated 09.12.2020 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2021. Learned counsel further contended that without any justification, the respondents are lingering on the matter on the basis of lame excuses and it appears that with mala fide intention, the respondents are trying to frustrate the Project of establishment of football ground.
9. Learned counsel for MCQ Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Nasar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abdullah Khilji, Law Officer MCQ tried to mention the difficulties which MCQ would face if the property in question is utilized for football ground as according to him the property in question is a commercial land which is being used by the Municipal Transport as a parking lot and as workshop for repairing vehicles of MCQ, therefore establishment of football ground in the property in question would cause difficulties for MCQ as already MCQ is facing scarcity of land to cater their needs. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10. The importance of sports facilities for healthy activities and for progress of any society is undeniable. The people of Quetta City are already suffering because of insufficient facilities for healthy activities such as sports due to extreme scarcity of grounds for the said purpose. In this backdrop, C.M.A. No. 1571/2021, filed by the petitioner in Constitution Petition No.232/2020 for implementation of the order dated 09.12.2020, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2021, as the then Administrator MCQ, as noted above, had given categorical statement before this Court for providing land to establish football ground at Sariab Road and it was also brought on record by the Administrator MCQ that the said Project is reflected in PSDP of the financial year 2021 -2022. Though, subsequently, the Administrator MCQ had filed Review Application for review of order dated 29.06.2021 passed by this Court but considering the attending circumstances of the case same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2021.
11. Learned counsel for MCQ has placed on record the revenue abstract of property in question in which it has been mentioned that the property in question is earmarked for establishment of football ground. We are dismayed to observe that despite detail order passed by this Court and in spite of reflection of the said Project in PSDP of financial year 2021-2022, the respondents are delaying the matter on different pretexts without any lawful justification.
12. The word "life" used in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter "the Constitution") is not restricted only to be vegetative or animal life or to that matter mere existence from conception to death, rather life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the case titled as Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan 1, the relevant excerpt whereof is reproduced herein below: "39. The expression 'life' implied in Article 9 of the Constitution, is also used in the corresponding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan prescribes that "no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law". Whereas in the Indian Constitution it reads that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution provides, "no State sh all deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". In Shehla Zia's case (ibid), it is held that the word "Life" used in Article 9 of the Constitution is very significant as it covers all facets of human existence. The word "life" has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally". (Emphasis provided)
13. The admitted feature of the case is that the property in question had been earmarked for establishment of football ground. The Administrator MCQ, while appearing before this Court in Constitution Petition No.232/2020 on 29.06.2021, had categorically mentioned that "the property belonging to the Corporation has been marked by the Commissioner Quetta Division, Quetta and the Project Director for establishment of football ground, and the project is reflected in the year PSDP 2021 -2022. He stated that the issue would be resolved by him and the Commissioner amicably, whereas he will have no objection upon establishment of the football ground".
14. In view of the above statement, subsequent excuses made by the incumbent Administrator of MCQ do not carry any weight as he is deliberately trying to frustrate the orders passed by this Court by resiling from the previous statement made by the then Administrator MCQ before this Court.
15. In view of the statement made by the then Administrator MCQ before this Court on 29.06.2021 and keeping in view the fact that since property in question has been earmarked for establishment of football ground (reflected in the revue record), a right had been created in favour of public at large vis -à-vis proposed football ground. In this context, reliance is being placed upon the case titled as Moulvi Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority 2, wherein the Supreme Court has held: "Admittedly a Public Park, if is earmarked in a housing scheme, creates a right amongst the public and that right includes their entry in the Park without any obstacle, being fundamental right enshrined in Article 26 read with Article 9 of the Constitution". In the wake of above deliberations and considering the previous orders passed by this Court regarding the subject matter, the instant constitution petition is accepted. The respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are directed to hand over the land measuring 13 rod 12 pol (144,837 sq. ft) falling under Khasra No.3092/610/751/610 Mahal and Mouza Khushkaba Karezat Sariab Kechi Baig District Quetta to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for establishing football ground which has already been approved in PSDP. MH/141/Bal. Petition allowed.