2004 PLP 911 (SCMR)
GHULAM HABIB JADOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KARACHI WATCH AND CARE SOCIETY and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 911 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HABIB JADOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KARACHI WATCH AND CARE SOCIETY and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Buildings Control Authority Ordinance (V of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 911 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Buildings Control Authority Ordinance (V of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 911 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 911 (SCMR) (GHULAM HABIB JADOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KARACHI WATCH AND CARE SOCIETY and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 2002.
- 3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record tort the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to file the petition and action, if any, against the petitioner could be taken only by the respondent No.2. This case has the characteristics of public interest litigation and the respondent No. 1, in fact, is probono publico, as such, had locus standi to file the petition and High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1985 SCMR 362.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 12‑12‑2001 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in Civil Petition No.D‑1805 of 2001). ‑‑‑‑S. 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Non‑Governmental Organization, locus standi of ‑‑‑Probono Publico litigation ‑‑‑Principle‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Construction in violation of approved building plan‑‑Petition filed by respondent, a non‑governmental organization, was allowed by the High Court and the authorities were directed to demolish the unlawful construction raised by the petitioner‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that the non‑governmental organization had no locus standi to file the petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Case had the characteristics of public interest litigation and the non‑governmental organization was probono publico, as such, had locus standi to file the petition and High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter‑‑‑Construction raised by the petitioner being in violation of the approved plan, therefore, demolishing order passed by the High Court was in accordance with law and no exception could be taken to it‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Multiline Associates v Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1985 SCMR 362 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2002. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Petitioner, Ghulam Habib Jadoon, has impugned the order dated 12‑i2‑2001 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Civil Petition No.D‑1805 of 2001 was allowed with the following observations:‑‑ "In view of the above, we would allow this petition directing the respondent No. 1 to demolish the building unlawfully raised within three months from today. They may recover the costs of demolition from the builder in case they so desired, but inability to recover costs will not be treated as a ground for not performing duties ordained by law. Compliance report may be submitted thereafter."
2. The respondent No. 1, Karachi Watch and Care Society, is a non‑governmental organization (N.G.O.) and is registered under Society Act XXI of 1986. It is looking after the problems of Karachi City relating to water, power and other easementary rights besides paying attention to the environmental hazards. It filed a petition before High Court against the petitioner for raising construction in violation of provisions of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance", stating therein that in spite of its repeated complaints the respondent No .2 failed to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Ordinance.
3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record tort the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to file the petition and action, if any, against the petitioner could be taken only by the respondent No.2. This case has the characteristics of public interest litigation and the respondent No. 1, in fact, is probono publico, as such, had locus standi to file the petition and High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1985 SCMR 362.
4. It appears from record that the construction raised by the petitioner was in violation of approved plan, which visualized ground plus one floor, but the construction actually raised was of ground plus floor. Demolition order passed by High Court is in accordance with law and no exception can be taken to it.
5. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.H./G‑146/S Petition dismissed.