2001 PLP 1816 (YLR)

Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner. Munawar Hussain Naqvi for Respondent No.6. Syed Masood Ahmad Gilani for Respondents Nos. 1 to

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is agent of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd., and is holder of Extra-Departmental Public Call Office at Haroonbabad District Bahawalnagar since 16th of September, 1993. The said ED PCO has been installed under the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the PTCL on the basis of the policy issued by the PTCL.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 has issued order, dated 12th of February, 1998 to the respondent No.4 whereby ED PCO has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.6 which is violative of the term 5.3 of the agreement and likewise violative of condition No.6 of the policy, dated 2nd of December, 1996 (Annexures 'C' and 'D'). Hence the petitioner seeks a direction through this Constitution petition that the sanction in favour of respondent No.6 of the ED PCO within the distance of 500 meters, being violative of terms of the agreement as well as the policy, be declared as void and without lawful authority. It has further been argued that the respondent No.3 has not passed impugned order in public interest but it has been passed under disctates - of political influence.

3. The respondents 1 to 5 submitted their report and parawise comments. However, respondent No.6 also appeared on his own to contest that petition at motion stage.

4. The counsel for respondents 1 to 5 has argued that the respondents are the principal and the petitioner is their agent; the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Constitution petition on the ground that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is contractual relationship, therefore, violation of any contractual right/obligation cannot be enforced through Constitution petition. In this respect, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments reported as Munir Gul and others v. Administrator Municipal Corporation, Peshawar (1998 CLC 89), M/s. Momin Motor Co. v. The RTA Dacca (PLD 1962 SC 108), Millat Tractors Employees Trust v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 DB Lah. 68) and Messrs Sandal Fibres Limited v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Lahore P.400). The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has raised the preliminary objection that the ED PCO in favour of respondent No.6 has been installed and is working since 3rd of March, 1998 while this Constitution petition was filed on 9th of December, 1998 hence it suffers from laches and lastly, the learned counsel has argued that in fact on 14th of December, 1998, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Communications Government of Pakistan has added a new clause in the policy guidelines that the Government of Pakistan being majority share-holders, Ministry of Communications is authorised to permit any departure from the policy parameter so the Minister for Communications can amend/alter policy guidelines by express ,orders of impliedly by action. The learned counsel for the respondents states that in this case ED PCO in favour of respondent No.6 has been installed on the recommendations of the local MNA by the Minister concerned hence the installation of ED PCO is in order. The learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the entire scheme and policy of the Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd., is to provide maximum facility to the public at large, hence with the. passage of the time it was felt . that the criterion i.e. minimum 500 meters distance between adjacent PCO is not in the interest of public at large, therefore, in this respect, policy has also been amended. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Constitution petition hence the same is not maintainable for enforcement of contractual right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out violation of any law or violation of any fundamental right for redressal of his grievance through this Constitution petition. Otherwise also, if the Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd., has decided in the interest of the public at large that for any congested area, the distance of 500 Meter is too much, it may sanction to instal new Extra Departmental Public Call Office, therefore, an exercise of equitable jurisdiction which primarily goes against the public at large cannot be undertaken while in this very case, neither there is any violation of law, rule or fundamental rights, therefore, this Constitution petition is not maintainable for enforcement of agreement between the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, hence, this Constitution petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-753/L Petition dismissed.