GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Others vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged an order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, concerning the fixation of days for holding cattle fairs under the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as private contractors who purchased the right to hold cattle fairs from a Town Committee, were adversely affected by administrative orders adjusting the fair days of a neighboring municipality so as to permit daily fairs. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not parties to the inter-municipal dispute adjudicated by the Commissioner, that their contractual right to hold fairs had not been restricted, and that they suffered no legal injury since they were under no obligation to hold fairs daily. The key principle laid down is that a third-party contractor whose substantive rights are unimpaired lacks standing to challenge administrative adjustments of municipal functions between local authorities under the relevant statutory framework.
- Whether a private contractor of a local body has locus standi to challenge an administrative order adjusting cattle fair days between rival municipal committees?
- Can a writ petition be maintained by a party whose contractual rights have not been curtailed or restricted by the impugned administrative action?
- Does an administrative order permitting daily cattle fairs adversely affect a contractor who is not bound to hold fairs on a daily basis?
- Section 114, Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a writ petition. The said writ petition was filed to challenge the order of the Commis--sioner, Sargodha Division, under section 114 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance regarding the fixation of days for holding cattle fairs at Jauharabad and Khushab. The petitioners had purchased the right of holding cattle fairs and collecting fees from the Town Committee of Jauharabad for a sum of Rs.16,000 for two years with effect from the 1st of October 1969. The fairs were under their contract to be held twice a week on Mondays and Tuesdays.
2. The respondent too. 3 purchased a similar right to hold cattle fairs on Tuesdays and Wednesdays of the week for two years from 1-7-69 within the limits of Khushab Municipality situated at a distance of about four miles from Jauhrabad.
3. The said respondent applied to the Municipal Committee for permission to hold the fairs on Mondays and Tuesdays. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, referred the matter to the Commissioner who, on the 30th of January 1970, accepted the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner that the Jauharabad fairs should be held on Mondays and Tuesdays and the Khushab fairs should be held on Wednesdays and Thursdays, but on the 22nd of November 1970, superseded his previous order and permitted the fairs to be held daily if the contractors so desired.
4. The petitioners now complain that if fairs are held daily, their income would be drastically reduced.
5. Under section 114 of the Municipal Administration Ordi--nance No. X of 1960 disputes arising between two or more Municipal Committees or between a Municipal Committee and a Local Council may be referred to the Commissioner if both the disputing bodies are within the same Division. It will thus be,, seen that the dispute that was referred to the Commissioner in the present case was between the Jauharabad Town Committee and the Khushah Municipality. The petitioners were not parties to those proceedings and their right to hold the fair has not been curtailed restricted in any way. Indeed, they have been given the privilege by the impugned order of holding the fair every day in the week, if they so desire. They cannot be said to be adversely affected by this order. If they do not wish to hold the fair every day they need not do so, because, they are not in any way bound to hold the fair daily. In any event, they cannot complain against what another local authority in a different area has done.
6. Their application under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 has, in our opinion, been rightly dismissed. This petition is, accordingly, also dismissed.