1989 PLP 2480 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, C. J.--By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above two Constitution Petitions. C.P.No.D-112/1985: The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners purchased 51 acres 30 ghuntas land, bearing Survey Blocks Nos. 546, 547, 548, 549 and 552/1, situated at Deh Khariseer, Taluka Mirpur Sekro, District Thatta (hereinafter referred to as the land) for the purpose of developing the same into a Town Planning Scheme. It seems that the petitioners obtained No. Objection from the Executive Engineer Highway Division Thatta and also from the Chairman District Council Thatta on 30-11-1981 and 1-12-1981 respectively and so also from the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Sub-Division Thatta can 2-12 1981. After that they obtained the approval of the lay-out plan from the Director Town Planning on 5-4-1982. It appears that on 10-4-1982, the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta, issued a letter containing certain conditions in relation to the development of the aforesaid Town Planning Scheme. It is the case of the respondents that since the petitioners had failed to comply with the conditions, the impugned action for demolishing the site office or removal of the signboard, etc., was taken, which is the subject-matter of the above petition. C.P.No.D-239,/1985: This petition was filed on 3-4-1985 for the reasons that respondent 2 in the above petition namely, the Director Town Planning Hyderabad, by his letter dated 17-3-1985 purported to withdraw the approval, prior. to that, respondent 3 i.e. The Deputy Commissioner Thatta, had issued a show-cause notice dated 9-1-1985 for the alleged non-compliance of the condition relating to the furnishing of an unconditional bank guarantee to the extent of 30% on the amount which was to be received by the petitioners from the prospective allottees of the plots and also failure to get the draft of the advertisement for the scheme approved before the releasing the same to the Press. We may observe that there is controversy on the latter point inasmuch as according to Mr. A. Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate-General, the petitioners were required to get the draft approved from respondent 3, whereas, according to Mr. J. H. Rahimtoola, learned counsel for the petitioners, as per clause 13 of the sanction only a copy of the draft was to be furnished to the respondent before it was released to the Press and which was in fact done, as admitted by the respondent in the comments. Be that as it may. In support of the above petition, Mr. J. H. Rahimtoola, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the impugned order in fact has been passed by respondent 2 at the behest of the respondent 3 without applying his mind to the facts of the case and without adverting to the question, whether there has been any breach of the terms of the sanction of the lay-out Plan. He has further submitted that since there was no condition provided in the original sanction that the petitioners were to submit an unconditional bank guarantee, they were not obliged to furnish the same and that in any case the respondents cannot treat the petitioners discriminately inasmuch as from Allahnoor Township they have taken the bank guarantee which is more conditional than the bank guarantee which the petitioners were willing to submit. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate-General, appearing for the respondents, has pointed out that the condition relating to the furnishing of an unconditional bank guarantee was imposed a s far back as 10-4-1982, which was accepted by the petitioners inasmuch as in furtherance thereof they submitted a bank guarantee and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to impugn the same after the expiry of about three years from the date of the above imposition. He has also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent 2 after applying his mind to the facts of the case and that the respondents have nothing against the petitioners, and they will still be willing to accept the bank guarantee is identical terms as was given by Allahnoor Township. In our view, Mr.Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate- General, has taken a reasonable stand in the above case, as by now some persons must have paid some amount in respect of some of the Plots. We would, therefore, dispose of the above petitions by directing that the petitioner will furnish a bank guarantee in identical terms as has been furnished by Allahnoor Township which they are developing under the name of Deluxe Housing Limited as sponsor and upon furnishing of such guarantee the impugned order shall stand revoked. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./P-99/K. Order accordingly.