1994 PLP 2059 (SCMR)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑Art. 184 (3)‑‑‑Human rights case‑‑‑Obtaining water for irrigation and domestic purposes not only for the petitioner himself, but for the general public as well was a matter which could be considered by the Supreme Court under Art. 184 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1994. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby his Constitution petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner submitted an application to Planning and Development Department for allocation of a rig machine to him for excavating a tubewell in his land. The respondents granted the request on 2‑12‑1991 and orders were issued to the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Circle, Quetta, to do the needful. The petitioner had deposited the requisite charges and he was to be given the rig after it was free from the work at Khoshab Zarghoon. The petitioner complained that instead of shifting the rig machine to his land, the same was sent to another site located at Mastung. He, therefore, filed a Constitution petition seeking direction to the respondent to provide rig machine for excavating the well for irrigation purposes. The respondents filed their comments, which read as follows:‑‑ "The appellant was asked by this office to take/shift the rig to his land on his own expenses after executing the agreement with the Zamindar by this office. The appellant, did not take/shift the drilling machine to his land on the plea that the rig machine is too old. After shifting the allotted rig to the lands, it is the responsibility on the Zamindar to bear the fuel expenses, repairing expenses of the rig machine, but the appellant was not ready for paying such expenses." The petition was, however, dismissed holding that the petitioner had no vested right to exercise the option in getting the rig and the Department after receiving the charges was bound to supply the rig machine subject to its availability and on an agreement to be entered into by the landlord.

3. The petitioner appeared personally and contended that the submissions made by the respondents are completely false as at no time the rig was offered to him and it was shifted from one place to another only to serve the influential persons.

4. It seems that the respondents have taken upon themselves the responsibility to provide rig machine for excavation of well on payment of charges. Such well, if dug, will be usefully utilized by he cultivators and residents of the area. In this regard only passing reference has been made to Irrigation Rules and Regulations without specifying or producing them. It seems to be the duty as undertaken by the respondents to supply a rig on payment of charges. Once such duty is cast upon the respondents, they are bound to supply a proper rig free from defects, so that the person hiring it should not suffer any loss in the normal manner and may be benefited by it. If the respondents fail in the discharge of their duties in this regard, they omit to perform their duty according to law. In order to examine the responsibilities and duties of the respondents in this regard, we grant leave. Even otherwise, the subject‑matter of the petition is in respect of obtaining water for irrigation and domestic purposes, not only for himself, but for the general public as well. In this view of the matter, the petitioner can be considered under Article 184(3) of the Constitution as‑well. Leave is granted. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay, which shall be considered alongwith the main appeal. M.B.A./M‑2122/S Leave granted.