Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 1120

MUHAMMAD RIAZ BHATTI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 1120
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 1724/L of 2002
Date2002-06-05
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tanvir Ahmed Khan
Authored byIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding an office objection against the maintainability of a constitutional petition. The petitioner, an elected Councilor, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in a representative capacity seeking the provision of Sui Gas to certain areas within his ward. The High Court office refused to entertain the petition on the ground that each applicant must vouch for facts via separate affidavits and that fiscal implications were involved, which view was upheld by the learned Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Article 199 of the Constitution, relief can only be sought by an aggrieved person, and the petitioner had sought relief on the basis of a vague plea without personal grievance. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition, laying down that a representative writ petition by a local councilor for general civic amenities without establishing the status of an aggrieved person under Article 199 is not maintainable.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an elected councilor can file a writ petition in a representative capacity for the provision of civic amenities without being an aggrieved person?
  • Does Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 require a petitioner to be an aggrieved person to seek relief?
  • Can a constitutional petition involving vague pleas and fiscal implications be entertained by the High Court?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
constitutional petitionaggrieved personmaintainabilitywrit petitionlocus standicivic amenities

ORDER

1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 25-4- 2002 passed by the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court whereby he upheld the objection raised by the office.

2. ' Precisely stating facts of instant petition are that the petitioner instituted a writ petition in the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is an elected Councilor from Ward No, 84, Lahore, and areas of Akram Park, Umar Colony, Fazal Colony, Abu Bakar Siddique Colony, Shabbir Town, Ghulam Hussain Colony, Shaheenabad and Yousaf Nagar are included in the above Ward. It was also averred that the said Union Council consisted of about 40,000 people but unfortunately they are still deprived of the basic amenity of Sui Gas which facility has been provided to the entire city of Lahore. The learned High Court through the impugned order, dated 24-4-2002 upheld the objection raised by the office in not entertaining the writ petition. The contents of the said order read as under:--- "Nemo.

3. ' Office objection is sustained being well based since not only each applicant will have to vouch facts qua the applied for gas connection through separate affidavits but fiscal implications are also involved."

4. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner is a Councilor and, A therefore, he instituted a writ petition in a representative capacity, as such the same was maintainable.

5. It may be noted that in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution relief is only to be sought by an aggrieved person but in present case it appears that on the basis of vague plea the petitioner has sought relief, as such the office of the High Court refused to accept the said writ petition. The learned Chief Justice, after having considered the office objection, upheld the same. In our opinion, the objection raised by the office has been rightly maintained, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. The instant petition is therefore dismissed.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.