2003 PLP 728 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Closing of Tubewell SCARP Scheme‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioner was that the act of Authorities of closing the Tubewell Scheme was mala fide‑‑‑Authorities contended that the Tubewell under SCARP Scheme was installed to provide water for cultivation purposes as alternate, arrangement had been achieved, therefore, the same was closed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Act of Authorities of closing the tubewell was not mala fide‑‑‑High Court had rightly dismissed the Constitutional petition‑‑‑Judgment passed by High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity calling interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 28th February, 2002. MUNIR, A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner praying that the respondents be restrained from closing the tubewell under the SCARP Scheme has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 31‑10‑2001. In the impugned judgment it has been observed that on 7‑11‑2000 the learned counsel for the petitioner made an offer to the respondents to purchase the said tubewell, therefore, the tubewell was ordered to be allowed to continue to operate till the petitioner would make an application to purchase the same. When the case was taken up after about a year i.e. on 31‑10‑2001 it transpired that the petitioner did not make any application to purchase the tubewell in question. It was stated by the learned Judge in Chamber in the impugned judgment that as many as, 1200 tubewells under the SCARP Scheme had been closed by the respondents. The respondents made an offer to the petitioner that if he wanted to operate the said tubewell on self‑help basis, the same could be transferred to the community of the farmers. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court observed that this offer was not accepted. It was also stated in the comments filed by the respondents that the said tubewell was installed to provide water for cultivation purposes as alternate arrangement which had already been achieved, therefore, the same was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the act of the respondents of closing the tubewell is mala fide or that the same is lacking of bona fides. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity calling interference by this Court. The petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M‑439/S Petition dismissed.