1996 PLP 1987 (CLC)

(d) Islamic Jurisprudence‑‑ . ‑‑‑‑Faith‑‑‑Muslim should like the same treatment and think for others which he likes for himself‑‑‑On such analogy if reservation of plots could be reserved for Advocates why such reservation be denied to Parliamentarians. Petitioner in person. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court has sought declaration to the effect that the act of the respondents of allotting the public property/plots to the Parliamentarians at Islamabad may be declared illegal, void, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and un‑Islamic and the respondents may be restrained from implementing the impugned act.

2. The filing of this writ petition according to the petitioner was necessitated as the Prime Minister of Pakistan made a declaration that the developed plots in the capital area Islamabad shall be allotted to the Members of the Parliament. Learned counsel for petitioner made the following submissions in support of this Constitutional petition:‑‑ (a) That under Article 66(1) of the Constitution the Members of the Parliament could enjoy only such privileges as may be defined by law and until so defined shall be such as were immediately before the commencing day enjoyed by the National Assembly of Pakistan and the committees thereof and its members and since such a privilege of allotment of plot in the capital area was not enjoyed by the members of the Parliament before and no law has either been made for conferring such a privilege on them, therefore, the impugned act for reservation of developed plots for allotment to them is violative of the Constitution. (b) That no State land/property could be transferred under Article 173(5) of the Consitution without making law on the subject. (c) That the allotments of plots are intended to be made to the members of the Parliaments in order to show favour to them to win their loyalties in favour of the Government, therefore, the same is mala fide.

3. None of the contentions have impressed me. Article 66 of the Constitution relates to the immunities and privileges of the members of the Parliament as regards proceedings in the House and their right to speak etc., so long as they are the members of the Parliament. Apart from this a member of the Parliament is not deprived of his rights as a citizen of Pakistan to hold property merely on his becoming member of the Parliament.

4. As regards contention that the State land could not be transferred without making law it may be mentioned that the land/plots within the limits of capital area of Islamabad is governed by C.D.A. Act, the rules and regulations framed thereunder which is a law. Under Articles 260(c) and 268(7) the statutory rules and regulations as regards transfer etc. of the State land have been declared to be the law for the purpose of Article 173(5) of the Constitution, to therefore, it cannot be argued that no law exists for dealing with the State land within the limits of Capital of Pakistan.

5. As regards third contention it may be pointed out that the law presumes that an act is bona fide unless it was shown to have been taken with mala fide intention. The petitioner cannot urge that it should be presumed that the impugned act suffers from mala fides.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner when pointed out that in the past both in the Provinces and the Federal Capital area plots in the development schemes had always been reserved for allotment to a group of persons as a class distinct from the other citizens such as Lawyers, Doctors, Players, Journalists and others and they had been getting the said plots allotted/transferred in their names as to how objection can be raised now to the allotment of the same to Parliamentarians as a class has not been able to give satisfactory answer. It may be observed that in the petition the petitioner has pleaded the Injunctions of Islam to object to the allotment of plots to Parliamentarians. It is cardinal principle of Islam that a Muslim who preaches the‑ principles. of Islam to others must himself first act on them otherwise the preaching of the same shall be of no effect and credibility. It is also the fundamental principle of Islam supported by the saying of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) that a Muslim should like the same treatment and thing for the others which he likes for himself, therefore, if reservation of the plots in the development schemes for other groups or class of people in particular the Lawyers and Advocates to which class the petitioner belongs was not objected to and has been treated to be justifiable act there is no reason to object to the reservation of the same to the other class of people in the same manner.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to persuade me that it is a fit case for interference in exercise of discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑88/L ‑ Petition dismissed.