1968 SCMR 322 (PLP)
Malik NAZ1R AHMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 322 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Malik NAZ1R AHMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 322 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 322 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S.A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 322 (PLP) (Malik NAZ1R AHMAD AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mohammad Akbar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Nasimul Haq Amjad, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th November 1967 in Writ Petition No. 1525 of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Question of fact-Question whether rights of easements would or would not be affected by construction of balding in question -Entail investigation of facts-Case not fit for adjudication under Art. 98.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners challenged the action of the West Pakistan Government, in allowing certain relaxation of bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation, Lahore, in respect of a plan to construct a building, submitted by the third respondent, Muhammad Yasin, to the Lahore Municipal Corporation, by a petition- under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court of West Pakistan. A Division Bench of that Court dismissed the petition and the petitioners seek special leave to appeal. The main contention advanced by Mr. Muhammad Akbar Malik, on behalf of the petitioners, is that there was no provision in the Municipal Ordinance or any other law, empowering the Provincial Government to relax the bye-laws of the Corporation. It is further contended that the bye-laws themselves contain no provision for their relaxation. The petitioners, however, did not ask for any relief against the Corporation who had, obviously, sanctioned the building plan, even though it may have done so in view of the relaxation order passed by the Government. The petitioners sought relief only against the Government and it was held by the High Court and we think rightly, that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the action of the Government. The petitioners grievance is that the building in question would affect their right of easement of light and air, they being the neighbouring tenement holders. The proper remedy of the petitioners was to lay a claim against the Corporation that they could not sanction such a plan, if there is any force in the contention that the Government orders, relaxing the bye-laws, was ultra vires. The question whether these rights of easement would or would not be affected by the construction of the building in question, would entail investigation of facts. The matter was not, 4 therefore, a fit one for adjudication under Article 98 of the Constitution, If so advised, the petitioners can seek redress by means of a regular suit against the Corporation or the third respondent. The petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.