2022 PLP 810 (MLD)
TARIQ JAVED — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 810 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TARIQ JAVED — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 810 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 810 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 810 (MLD) (TARIQ JAVED — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Policy decision
Scope
Petitioner impugned the scheme of respondent by which they were erecting/constructing a bridge
Contention of petitioner was that the construction of pedestrian bridge with ramp for motorcycle riders was inconvenient, unnecessary and was likely to affect the shopkeepers in the vicinity
Element of convenience and above all the safety of the motorcyclists was considered accordingly, it was for the respondent to consider all relevant and requisite factors relating to the traffic and regulation thereof
High Court declined to intervene in the policy decision or proceed to review contours of any scheme/plan regarding construction of pedestrian bridge, judicially, in the absence of any infringement of enforceable legal right
Constitutional petition, being incompetent, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASIM HAFEEZ, J.
The petitioner has sought relief in the following terms: "that this Writ Petition may very kindly be accepted and the impugned order 10.12.2020 passed by the Chairman, NHA/respondent No.1 and scheme of the respondents-NHA, by which they are erecting/constructing the bridge upon Khanewal to Lodhran Road on right side of flow of traffic in front of Multan/Dunyapur to Dokota Road may very graciously be declared illegal, unlawful, void, ab initio, without any justification and unlawful authority and the same may be set aside and the pedestrian bridge which is to be constructed, the same may be constructed and crossed from left side of Multan/Dunyapur to Dokota Road (left side of traffic flow) or to construct simple pedestrian by deleting the Motorcyclists Ramps in the light of Para No.4/N proposed by the respondents Nos.2, 4 and 6."
2. Relevant facts are that petitioner had earlier filed Constitutional petition bearing W.P No.15261 of 2019, which was disposed of on 09.10.2019 in terms of the direction issued. Subsequently, petitioner filed Cr.Org. No.544-W of. 2020, withdrawn upon passing of order dated 15.07.2020. Order of 15.07.2020 was again impugned through another constitutional petition bearing W.P. No.10987 of 2020, which was disposed of on 08.09.2020 with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide grievance of the petitioner through speaking order. In this behalf order is passed on 10.12.2020, rejecting grievance of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel contends that order impugned was passed by respondent No.1 without considering the recommendations of the Director Maintenance. Adds that construction of pedestrian bridge with ramp for motorcycle riders is inconvenient, unnecessary and likely to affect the shopkeepers in the vicinity.
4. The matter was referred to respondent No.1, who proceeded to extend approval to the original plan. The element of convenience and above all the safety of the motorcyclists was considered accordingly. It is for the respondent No.1 to consider all relevant and requisite factors - relating to the traffic and regulation thereof. This court is not inclined to intervene in the policy decision or proceed to review contours of any scheme / plan regarding construction of pedestrian bridge, judicially, in the absence of any infringement of enforceable legal right.
5. This Constitutional petition is incompetent and same is, therefore, dismissed. SA/T-8/L Petition dismisse