P L D 1998 Karachi 189 (PLP)

Petitioners have filed this petition and prayed the following, relief: (i) To declare that the agreement dated 18-2-1997 executed by the Retired Bishop Bashir Jiwan son of Jiwan Church of Pakistan Hyderabad in favour of M/s. Al-Madni & Partner Hyderabad (respondents Nos. 5 and 6) in respect of C.S. No.337/C-I, measuring 1995 sq. yards, City Court Road, Sukkur, on the basis of power of attorney, dated 16-3-1993 executed by Rev. E. Tac, Secretary, Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore in favour of respondent No. l by which the respondent No. l is not empowered and authorised being not the owner to sell the property, nor to allow substitution, additions and alterations, is illegal, beyond competency and against the tenets of Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore for which the present C.S. No.337/C-I was reserved for vicarage/pastor house and the same cannot be utilized for any other alternate commercial or trade purpose other than the religious purpose for which it was meant. (ii) To declare that the respondent No. 1, Retired Bishop Bashir Jiwan is not competent to dispose of the plot No.C-337/1 vicarage/pastor house for any other purpose which could defeat the religious purpose of Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore and further to declare that the power of attorney executed by him in favour of the respondent No.5 is beyond competency and as such bears no sanctity in the eye of law. (iii) To grant permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from acting upon the agreement dated 18-2-1997 self or through their agents, subordinates or coordinates. (iv) To grant any other relief by way of rule, writ or order as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. On an inquiry from the Bench as to whether the petitioners are aggrieved persons, the petitioner's counsel stated that the matter is of general public importance, religious feelings of the petitioners and sentiments are attached, therefore, according to him petition is maintainable and they are aggrieved persons. Petitioners I to 4 in this case claim to be the Christians by faith and members of St. Saviour Church while petitioners 5 to 8 are Muslim by faith and it is stated that their privacy will be affected and therefore they have joined in a case relating to the Christian community. Petitioners have stated that property at survey number 337/C/1, is Vicar house where Vicar of St. Saviour Church lived. It belongs to Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore. Former Bishop of Hyderabad Rt. Rev. Bashir Jiwan was given power of attorney by the Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore and he entered in an agreement with respondent No.6 for development of the property. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 approached this Court as they were prevented by the Deputy Commissioner Sukkur for raising construction. That petition was dismissed by this Court as not maintainable and it was held that the petitioner in that case is not an aggrieved person. This petition has been filed in which the above quoted relief has been prayed. Perusal of prayer would reveal that no prayer has been made in relation to the privacy of petitioners 5 to

8. On the face of petition this petition is bad in law for misjoinder of petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 4 claim to be members of St. Saviour Church. They were not entitled to live or use the vicarage house which is the subject-matter of this petition. Church members by themselves cannot assume the function of church administrators. They may have some say through their elders or deans to be appointed or elected according to the Constitution of the Church itself. By becoming member or attending Church service, petitioners cannot claim relief particularly involving contractual obligations undertaken by the hierarchy of the church. Petitioners 1 to 4 on the strength that they are the members of the church cannot claim the relief which has been claimed by them in this petition as they are not aggrieved persons nor do they have any right to claim any relief in relation to the contracts executed by the hierarchy of the church with the respondent No.6. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghulam Akbar v. Deputy Commissioner Dadu and another PLD 1997 Kar. 355 in which a Bench of this Court . converted the petition into public interest litigation and disposed of by that Bench. It was held by that Bench that the community centre built by District Council Dadu at Sehwan could not be let for the use of commercial purpose i.e. be converted into hotel and continued to be used as such. The facts of the reported case and the law laid down by this Court is not applicable in relation to this case for the reasons that District Council constructed the community centre to be used by the community at large and the public funds were involved while in the present case public funds are not involved nor the vicarage house was available for use to any body or the public at large. It was for the Vicar of St. Saviour Church Sukkur and not by any other person. In the reported case, community centre, when it was built was for the use of public, while the private property i.e. vicarage is owned by Lahore Diocesan Trust Association Lahore. It is not for the use of public at large. Therefore there is marked distinction between the reported case and the facts of this case. It has been stated that the religious feelings of the petitioners are hurt by conversion of Vicar House for commercial purpose and therefore, they are aggrieved persons. Churches are granted freedom to manage their, affairs like any other religious body. Such right is given to the churches by the Constitution under Article

20. They are free to enter into any valid contract for management of their property in any manner (subject to the exceptions mentioned in that Article). Petitioners are only members of the church. They are neither elders nor deans. Their grievance, if any, is only imaginary and by development of church property, the sentiments of petitioners could not be hurt. Lastly it was contended that the respondent No.l Bishop has no authority to sell the property or allow substitution. The agreement on record is neither for sale nor substitution as the property is not replaced by another property or sold for consideration. This contention as such is devoid of any force. Coming to the prayer it may be noticed that the prayer only involves the relief of declaration and injunction. No relief has been sought against the official respondent i.e. respondent No.7. This Court does not entertain matters involving contractual obligations between the private parties to which officials of State are not involved more particularly when such contractual obligations would require evidence for resolution. Even the prayer prayed by the petitioners could not be granted by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. For all these reasons, this petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine alongwith all miscellaneous applications. A.A./P-42/K ????????????????????? Petition dismissed