2007 PLP 28 (YLR)

MUSHIR ALAM, J.

Petitioner has impugned inaction on the part of Provincial Government and Taluka Municipal, Taluka Council, Hyderabad. Brief facts leading to instant petition appears to be that the petitioners occupying a portion of the public property, were relocated on the promise that they will be provided alternate place in the D-Block of the workshop. It seems that such arrangement was approved by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation through its resolution dated 17-5-1983. It seems that such resolution was not acted upon, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation concedes to the claim of the petitioner before the Ombudsman. Only defence taken was that, the subject resolution could be acted upon after approval of the Provincial Government. In this view of the matter, learned Ombudsman concluded as follows:-- "I have examined the case and found that the claim of the complainant is genuine and the H.M.C. is morally and legally bound by its Council's resolution dated 17-5-1983 to allot the land to the complainants and excuse of ban should not have come in its way. If the Government agencies back out of their commitments given to the citizens in such a manner it is no wonder why their credibility has touched the lowest ebb in the public eye. I would, therefore, advise the Secretary, Local Government that the ban may be got relaxed in this case. I would also draw his attention to the clear precedent in which the Governor has passed orders on a Summary dated 4-7-2000 moved by Housing and Town Planning Department, Government of Sindh for relaxing the ban for allotment of 188 alternate plots on the basis of orders passed by the Superior Courts/Ombudsman only." It may be observed that public functionaries are not only expected but required to display sense of responsibility in living up to commitment made by their, and affirmed in its resolution, commitment made as reflected in a resolution of a public body like Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, succeeded by Taluka Council amounts to holding out and binding contractually. Unless such commitment is honoured, trust of people in public bodies would be shattered. In case commitment made and affirmed in the Council resolution dated 17-5-1983 is allowed to be breached then no sanctity would be attached to the proceedings of public bodies and public confidence in elected public bodies would be shattered, which in itself would be a dangerous proposition. Observations by the learned Ombudsman that, the Governor had passed orders for re-accommodation to other persons on similar commitment, such fact is not disputed by the Additional Advocate-General, rather affirmed by the Advocate for the Taluka Municipal City. If such is the case, then it is a case of discrimination meted out to the petitioner. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that, the petitioners were encroacher and not entitled to any right. Such arguments at this stage are prepositions. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were entitled for re-settlement on merits of their possession. Petitioner's case rest on the promise and commitment made by the respondent No.3, as reaffirmed by the Council in its resolution referred to above. It is not the case of the Council that, the resolution was illegal, or that, it could not have been passed or that commitment to rehabilitate dislocated persons, in past was never fulfilled or carried out. In the instant case also petitioners were dislocated with commitment and promise to provide them alternate place, then it does not lie in the mouth of the public body, to take a stand contrary to their commitment. Learned counsel for the respondents were not able to show that in past, Governor had not accommodated similarly placed persons. Learned counsel for the District Government also concedes that such commitment was made to be honoured. He is however, of the view that, unless sanction is accorded by the Provincial Government the Council cannot do much about its resolution. Mr. Noorani, learned Additional A.-G. is of the view that the observation by the learned Ombudsman would be acted upon by the Government of Sindh. Under the circumstances, let the matter be placed before the Government of Sindh for consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the resolution passed by the Council and accord necessary approval so that the confidence of the public in the representative office is restored. Exercise to be carried out preferably within a period of four months. The petition in the above terms stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-140/K Order accordingly.