Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. D‑848 of 1986, decided on 24th September, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑A(i)(ii)‑‑Constitutional ‑ petition, maintainability of‑‑Only aggrieved person, held, could file petition under Art. 199‑A(i)(ii) in respect of matters‑ relating to actions and omissions by persons performing functions in connection with affairs of Federation or Province or Local Authority‑‑Petition filed against private persons in respect of alleged misappropriation of Government land filed by one who admittedly was not an aggrieved person, was not maintainable.

1981 S C M R 74 ref.

Muhnmmad Rafiq Khanzada for Petitioner.

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are all private persons and they are alleged to have misappropriated the Government land Direction is sought against respondent No. 6 for filing a complain' against respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

The petitioner is not aggrieved in any manner and the explanation of Mr. Rafiq Khanzadq is that the petitioner need not be an aggrieved person in filing such petition. He has relied upon 1981 S C M R 74. But the difficult for the petitioner is that the cited decision of the Supreme Court is in respect of clause 'B' of Article 98(i) of the Constitution which refers to detention matters and matters of quo warranto nature. In respect of these two matters a person need not be' an aggrieved person but in respect of matters which are covered by Article 199‑A(i)(ii) It is only the aggrieved person who can file at petition. And these matters cover the case of actions and omissions by Fed the eration s performing functions in connection with the affairs of the or Province or local authority. The present petition is concerned with the actions /omissions stipulated under Article 199(1)(a) 0 and (ii) anc. the same is, therefore, not competent as the petitioner is not aggrieved in any manner. We appreciate the gesture of the petitioner in taking up a public matter but he should really bring the same to the notice of the Government and relevant authorities instead of filing this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine and the office objection is thus sustained.

H.B.T./5171/K Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.