MUHAMMAD YAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and otherss
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) challenging the construction of a bridge at a specific location. The petitioner had previously challenged a letter issued by the Minister for Ushr and Zakat, Government of Punjab, which directed a change in the venue of the bridge's construction. The High Court, in both the original writ petition and the subsequent I.C.A., found that substantial construction work had already been completed at the original site prior to the Minister's letter. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific loss resulting from the bridge's construction at the current location or identify any vested right that had been infringed upon to justify a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioner's arguments were misconceived and lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's reasoning.
- Does a change in the venue of a public construction project by a government official automatically create a cause of action for a constitutional petition?
- Is a petitioner required to demonstrate the infringement of a vested right to maintain a constitutional petition against a public works project?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an order dismissing a writ petition when the petitioner fails to pinpoint any actual loss or legal injury?
ORDER
' Consequent upon rejection of the petitioner's Writ Petition No,3688 of 2004 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench grudging against construction of within mentioned bridge, I.C.A. No,77 of 2004 was recoursed which met with the same fate vide the impugned order dated 30-11-2004, observing:-- "This I.C.A. Is directed against the order dated 4-11-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby Writ Petition No,3688 of 2004 filed by the appellant challenging the letter dated 14-10-2004 issued by the Minister for Ushr and Zakat, Government of Punjab, for changing the venue of construction of a bridge, was dismissed.
(2) Arguments heard. Record perused.
(3) The construction of the project in question at its present place was commenced prior to issuance of the letter of the Minister for Ushr and Zakat; a substantial work has already been done; learned counsel failed to pinpoint any loss which may accrue if the construction of bridge at its present place is completed; even no vested right of the appellant was pinpointed, in fringement of which may give rise to a cause of action to be agitated through a Constitutional petition.
(4) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed by the learned Single Judge after having considered the various pros and cons of the matter in issue and no exception with regard thereto can be taken in this I.C.A. Which stands dismissed in limine."
' Has sought leave to appeal reiterating the submission.
2. Which we are afraid is misconceived because the same has been exhaustively dealt with by the.
Learned I.C.A. Bench as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Resultantly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave declined.