2004 PLP 235 (YLR)

Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Addl. A.‑G., Sindh for Respondent No.1. S. Muzaffar Imam for Respondent No.2. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent No.3. Anwar Ali Shah for Respondent No.4. The petitioner who is a sub‑lessee of the respondent No.5, in whose favour the respondent No.4 executed a lease contends that whereas the respondent No.2 has allowed commercialization of more than 90% of plots in the vicinity of the petitioner's plot (on Tariq Road and PECHS), the petitioner's request for such commercialization made in 1999 is being ignored on one pretext or the other and the petitioner is thereby subjected to hostile discrimination. The fact that more than 90 % of the properties at Tariq Road have been commercialized and receipt of an application for commercialization alongwith challan for an amount of Rs.1,200,000 has not been denied. It is, however, contended that decision on all pending applications for commercialization were held in abeyance in view of the decision of the governing body of the erstwhile K.D.A. dated 24‑11‑1999 to wait new commercialization policy. All learned counsel for the respondents state that such policy is likely to be framed and announced shortly. Be that as it may, while the respondents would be entitled to frame any appropriate policy for commercialization, there seems to be no justification for suspending the operation of one policy without announcing another one. In any event, it is well‑settled that when the law confers functions upon a public authority such functions must be discharged within a reasonable time. The same principle would apply both to the questions of formulation of commercialization policy as well as deciding the petitioner's application. Accordingly we would direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's application for commercialization within two months from today and the order together with reasons be communicated to this Court. Mr. Arfin states that permission by the respondents Nos.5 and 6 to commercialize the plot has already been communicated to the respondent No.2. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad stated on instructions that the possibility of rates of commercialization being reviewed and, therefore, the amount paid by the petitioner may not be sufficient for allowing consideration of his application. In this context we may clarify that prima facie even if the rates are revised by respondent No.2 they could only have prospective effect and the aforesaid respondent could not take advantage of its own negligence. Accordingly we would direct the respondent No.2 to decide the matter within two months without requiring the petitioner to make any further payment. The petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑554/K Order accordingly.