Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

ORDER

' The petitioner who claims to be the President, Pakistan Motors Transport Federation, Narowal has filed this petition probono publico on two-fold grounds. The first ground rests on the grievance that some land has been mutated by way of a gift by some persons in favour of Municipal Committee, Narowal who had themselves no title in the land. As a consequence of this act, the Municipal Committee is going to be deprived of their revenue to the tune of about six to seven lacs on an exercise which is against public interest and also would be against financial propriety, it is alleged.

Further grievance of the petitioners is that despite having approached the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division who is a delegatee of the powers of Provincial Government under sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, stay order earlier granted by him has been vacated on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot.

2. As I understand the scope of delegation, it is one of the basic principles that, the 'delegators by delegating their powers do not get denuded of those powers. In the present case, the powers vest in the Provincial Government and if -the delegate is not conducting himself to the liking of the Government, it can itself exercise those powers. The powers vested in a delegator by a statute can always be exercised by it unless on being already exercised by the delegatee' they stand exhausted. That stage has not yet reached. It is therefore, open for the petitioners to approach the Provincial Government and bring to its notice the alleged act of financial impropriety going to be committed by the Municipal Committee, Narowal. In so far as this Court is concerned. I am afraid the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of expression "aggrieved person" in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution. An aggrived person is contemplated to be a person against whom a judgment is pronounced and he is directly affected thereby. The persons like the petitioners who have no personal interest of their own and have approached the Court on the bare plea of financial propriety for the funds of Municipal Committee, in my humble view, do not qualify to be persons aggrieved to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Where the bus stop should be or should not be is not being directly challenged but is being indirectly challenged on the basis of a mutation which according to the learned counsel is void. The validity of a mutation has normally never been 'examined An Constitutional jurisdiction and if at all a challenge has to be thrown, civil Courts are open for the purpose.

3. The next plea being raised for interference by this Court is that in the writ petition No,76/R of 1980 there was a stay order issued by this Court. I have had the advantage of going through the contents of that writ petition and the orders passed. The stay order has been passed by the learned Judge of this Court while hearing the writ petition in terms of the prayer made and the prayer made was that the possession of the petitioner who was Ali Hussain should not be disturbed in the meanwhile. Neither of the petitioners are Ali Hussain or successor-in-interest of that party.

Petitioners were not a party to those proceedings. The only parties to the earlier writ petition are EASO/Additional Settlement Commissioner and Border Area Committee. Learned counsel after being confronted with' this position says that contempt proceedings can be taken suo motu. I entirely agree, but I would like to inform him that matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemner. Nobody can move the Court as a matter of right.

4. As I have already expressed the view that the parties to the writ petition are not going to be directly affected by the action proposed by the Municipal Committee, Narowal, the petitioners still, if they have any grievance can bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab in the Local Government Department under sections 156-157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and I have no reason to doubt that the people sitting at the apex in the Government would not allow an illegality to prosper. Or to be perpetuated.

5. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not entertained and disposed of accordingly.