LIAQAT ALI vs CITY NAZIM and others
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the authority of the respondent to initiate proceedings against him regarding land allegedly situated outside the municipal limits of Faisalabad. The petitioner contended that notices issued under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 were invalid as that statute had been repealed by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable based solely on the apprehension of illegal action by public functionaries without supporting documentation. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, citing the established principle that a writ cannot be maintained against mere apprehension of harm. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that proceedings had actually been initiated. However, in the interest of justice, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the District Coordination Officer to personally examine the matter, provide a hearing to all parties, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe, ensuring the respondent's employees act strictly within their legal authority.
- Is a writ petition maintainable when it is based solely on the apprehension of illegal action by public authorities?
- Does the repeal of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001 invalidate notices issued under the former?
- Can a court direct an administrative officer to hear a grievance when the underlying writ petition is found to be based on mere apprehension?
- Section 64, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 65, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 196, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001
ORDER
' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that according to the petitioner his land is not situated in the notified area of Municipal limits of Faisalabad. Therefore, the respondent has no authority to take action against the petitioner. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that employees of the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 64 and 65 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 which has been repealed in view of section 196 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. He further submits that employees of the respondent have no lawful authority to proceed against the petitioner. He further submits that employees of the respondent have taken the law in their own hands.
2. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record ourselves. The petitioner has filed this writ petition without attaching any document to show that respondent's employees have initiated proceedings against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against apprehension as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Re-rolling Steel Mills case (1968 SCM R 317(2)).
' However, in the interest of justice and fairplay let a copy. Of the writ petition be sent to District Coordination Officer concerned who is directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and representative of respondent within 20 days after receiving order of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Coordination Officer in his office on 5-4-2002 at 11 a.m. Who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law preferably within 20 days till 25-4-2002. He is further directed to submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The employees of the respondent-are directed to act strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Malik Khizar Hayat Khan, A.A.-G. Who is directed to send the same to D.C.O. Concerned for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Aneeqa Shoail, etc vs Lahore Development Authority, etc 2022 LHC 5987, 2024 MLD 183
- Al-Bakio International and 8 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 8 others 2021 PLD Lahore 1, 2020 LHC 2439
- ARSHAD WAHEED vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others 2010 PLD Lahore 510