1989 PLP 1823 (CLC)

MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.‑‑Through this Constitution Petition, following reliefs were claimed by petitoners:‑ (i) that the respondent No.2 has no lawful authority to compel the petitioners to participate in Juma Bazar vide his notification dated 14‑3 1989 which is totally without lawful authority and jurisdiction not vested in him: (ii) further the prices of above said commodities fixed by the respondent No.3 on the directions of respondents 1 and 2 as totally without lawful authority and jurisdiction not vested in them which is null and void and of no legal consequences. (iii) Any other relief as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded with costs of this petition." Petitioners are aggrieved from the directions issued by local Administration requiring them to sell fish and poultry items by rotation in Juma Bazar Quetta at cheaper rates. Besides they have challenged the competency of respondents to specify rates on which fish or poultry items may be sold by them to general public.

2. It is the case of petitioners that in the normal course of their business they have to purchase hens, chikens, eggs and fish etc. from wholesale markets of Karachi and Sukkur to cater the needs of general public at Quetta. According to them prices of these articles continue fluctuating in the wholesale market therefore, sale price of said commodities can neither remain constant nor be specified. They contend that rates suggested by administration to sell aforementioned commodities at Juma Bazar, are lower than their purchase price.

3. Comments of respondents Land 2 were sought, who have denied fixation of rates in respect of fish or poultry items as alleged by petitioners. However it is explained that they had asked petitioners to sell the aforesaid commodities by rotation in Juma Bazar at concessional rates. It is undisputed that the prices of 1 articles of daily use are alarmingly increasing. The general public on account of unchecked price hike is being adversely affected. 'there is gradual arbitrary and unjustified enhancement of price respecting necessary articles of daily use, however people interested in undue profiteering and gains are totally unmoved. _ The Government has an obligation to ensure adequate supply of daily necessities to all and sundry within their respective sources and levels of income. Thus administration certainly enjoys authority for placing reasonable restrictions for the larger benefit of common man and general public. By no means District Management while functioning in good faith for the common benefit of people at large has right to question from businessmen about unconscionable, arbitrary and I whimsical increase in the price of articles of daily use, from the prevalent rates. It cannot be conceived that shopkeepers or businessmen have unfettered authority to enhance the prices unjustifiably at their whim and choice and nobody could check them.

4. Learned Assistant Commissioner who was present in the Court explained that local administration was merely striving hard to control , unreasonable and unconscionable rapid increase in the prices of aforesaid commodities and ensure its adequate supply to general public at moderate rates on the basis of minimum profit without specifically fixing the rate in that behalf.

5. Evidently respondents have not fixed any rate ~so far. Therefore petition to the extent of probable threat of taking action in future is not maintainable. Accordingly reference to reported case Pakistan Mine owners' Association and others v. District Magistrate, Quetta and others (P L D 1979 Quetta 160) is inapt. Whereas regarding efforts of respondents for persuing the petitioners to participate in Juma Bazar; it may be observed that same is obviously for public interest and general benefits of the citizens. No mala tide intention for doing so has at all been attributed to respondents in this behalf. It is well settled that remedy by way of writ is of discretionary nature. Its main object is to rectify the wrong and promote the justice. It is thus obligatory for the party invoking this discretionary power of the Court to essentially approach with clean hands. His U conduct should, reflect fairplay and anxiety for common benefits of majority. He should not be aiming to contravene law or in any way affecting rights or privileges of people at large. Therefore discretionary relief can only be used to cure manifest illegalities, but not to promote injustice or exploitation of people at large. Apparently the object of petitioners by avoiding to participate in Juma Bazar appears to merely make undue gains and frustrate efforts of administration to provide necessities of life to' people at the moderate rates. Even otherwise petitioners have not been able to establish violation of any law or vested rights. In a recent judgment. Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhmmad Saifullah Khan and others P L D 1989 S.C. 166) considering equitable principle and discretionary nature of relief provided by constitutional remedy Hon'ble Supreme Court in spite of holding order of dissolution of National and Provincial Assemblies as without lawful authority, in the larger interest of public and nation, denied the main relief concerning restoration of Assemblies. Similarly in case Ghulam Sarwar Awan v. Government of Sind P L D 1988 Kar. 414) Division Bench of Sind High Court, has observed that even if impugned order was found to be illegal Court may decline to press into service its constitutional jurisdiction if doing so, instead of advancing interest of justice or public good, tends to defeat the same. Thus for the foregoing reasons and principle of law enunciated in" , aforequoted reports, we are not inclined to entertain this petition which is accordingly directed to be dismissed in limine. A.A./332/Q Petition dismissed.