Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.3413 of 1987, decided on 29th July, 1987.

--- Delegators by delegating their powers do not get denuded of those powers--Powers vesting in a delegator by a statute can always be exercised by him unless on being already exercised by delegatee same stood exhausted.

---Art.199--Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.156 & 157--Aggrieved person--Connotation--Writ jurisdiction--Petitioner filing petition probono publico on grounds (i) that some land had been mutated by way of gift by some persons in favour of Municipal Committee who had themselves no title in such land and as a consequence of said act, Municipal Committee was going to be deprived of revenue to the tune of lacs of rupees on an exercise which was against public interest and would be against financial propriety, and (ii) that despite having approached Commissioner who was a, delegatee of Provincial Government under Ss.156 & 157, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, stay order earlier granted by him had been vacated on recommendation of Deputy Commissioner--Powers delegated to Commissioner under Ss.156 & 157 of Ordinance not having been exercised by him, it was open to petitioner to approach Provincial Government in matter--Expression "aggrieved person" in Art.199 of Constitution-- Meaning--Petitioner having no personal interest of his own and having approached the Court on bare plea of financial propriety for the funds of Municipal Committee, held, would not qualify to be "person aggrieved" to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the Court--Validation of a mutation had normally never been examined in :constitutional jurisdiction and if at all a challenge had to be thrown, Civil Courts were open for the purpose--Petitioners were not going to be directly affected by action of Municipal Committee, still if they had any grievance, they could bring matter to notice of Provincial Government under Ss.156 & 157 of Ordinance--Petition not entertained.

--- Contempt proceedings can be taken suo motu--Matter of contempt, however, is between the Court and the contemner and nobody can move the Court as a matter of right.

Ch. Khalid Mahmood Shaheen for Petitioner.

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 aggrieved 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 in 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.761 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.

S. Q./ M-368/L Petition not entertained.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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