Aggrieved Party

2024 PLC(CS) 1097 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.4Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212Writ, issuance ofAggrieved partyScope

Petitioner, serving servant, filed constitutional petition against the decision of the promotion of respondent (servant) by the Provincial Selection Board (PSB)

Held, that burden of proof was on the petitioner to demonstrate as to which of his fundamental rights had been infringed upon but he failed to point out any in fraction of any fundamental rights to claim issuance of the Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Quo warranto

Prima facie, the entire case of the petitioner was based on factual controversy and he had no locus standi to file constitutional petition because he was not an aggrieved person

Subject matter of the constitutional petition pertained to the terms and conditions of service, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution, read with S. 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

2023 MLD 1121 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionLocus standiAggrieved partyScope

It is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Art. 199 of the Constitution that the petitioner should have a locus standi to institute the proceedings or in other words the petitioner should be an aggrieved party from the action of the respondent.

2023 PLD 89 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Aggrieved party

Meaning.

2022 PLC(CS) 1433 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionAggrieved party"Person"Scope

Aggrieved party can invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199(1)(a) of the Constitution against a person performing, within its territorial jurisdiction, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or a Province or a local authority

Article 199(5) elucidates that "person" includes any body politic or body corporate, any authority under the control of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, and any court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a court or tribunal established under a law relating to the armed forces of Pakistan.

2018 YLR 26 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtLocus standiAggrieved partyCompetency to file / invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScope

To invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, it has to be established that the petitioner's legal or Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution had been violated and locus standi to seek such direction under denial of legal right, if any, had to be proved

Sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Art. 199 of the Constitution was that the petitioner should have a locus standi which meant that he/she must be an aggrieved party.

2018 CLD 48 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Rr. 35, 36 & 48Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionAggrieved partyScopePetitioner was local agent of a foreign company which took part in bidding processNon-impleading principal company

Petitioner was aggrieved of result of bidding and assailed the same before High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction without impleading the principal foreign company as party to the petition

Plea raised by petitioner was that in the event the contract was awarded to foreign company, petitioner was to perform certain obligations under the contract

Validity

Petitioner could not be allowed to plead the case of foreign company which was one of the three bidders and which was not before the High Court as party to the lis

Plea raised by petitioner was far-fetched an idea to consider it as an aggrieved party

Petitioner was local agent of the foreign company and was not a 'bidder' and therefore, had no locus standi to file constitutional petition

Foreign company did not challenge the award of marks in evaluation process carried out by the authorities, as the company was a necessary party to the constitutional petition but was not impleaded as a party

Petitioner (agent of company) was not able to establish its claim for relief prayed for as the process culminating in award of highest marks to respondent in bid evaluation process conducted by Bid Evaluation Committees constituted by authorities was not illegal, irrational or procedurally improper

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the bidding process

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PLD 150 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Rr.35, 36 & 48Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionAggrieved partyScopePetitioner was local agent of a foreign company which took part in bidding processNon-impleading principal company

Petitioner was aggrieved of result of bidding and assailed the same before High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction without impleading the principal foreign company as party to the petition

Plea raised by petitioner was that in the event the contract was awarded to foreign company, petitioner was to perform certain obligations under the contract

Validity

Petitioner could not be allowed to plead the case of foreign company which was one of the three bidders and which was not before the High Court as party to the lis

Plea raised by petitioner was far-fetched an idea to consider it as an aggrieved party

Petitioner was local agent of the foreign company and was not a 'bidder' and therefore, had no locus standi to file constitutional petition

Foreign company did not challenge the award of marks in evaluation process carried out by the authorities, as the company was a necessary party to the Constitutional petition but was not impleaded as a party

Petitioner (agent of company) was not able to establish its claim for relief prayed for as the process culminating in award of highest marks to respondent in bid evaluation process conducted by Bid Evaluation Committee constituted by authorities was not illegal, irrational or procedurally improper

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the bidding process

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PTD 1301 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17, 171 & 194-ASeizure and confiscation of imported goods"Aggrieved party"Scope

Appeal filed against order-in-original, was objected to on the ground that appellant being not aggrieved party, was not entitled to file appeal

Validity

Adjudicating Authority, not only discussed the conduct of appellant, but also passed adverse orders against him

Legal right, in circumstances accrued in favour of appellant to file present appeal

Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, could assail that order-in-appeal, even if he was not a party before the Adjudicating Authority.

2014 PLD 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 25(b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAggrieved partyScopePlea bargain, assailing ofComplainant bank was aggrieved of plea bargain order passed by NAB and approved by Trial CourtObjection raised by accused was that complainant had no locus standi to assail the orderValidity

Not only a colossal amount of money / property belonging to at least one million depositors i.e. a large section of public, was at stake but existence of complainant bank was also at stake

Objection raised by accused was based on surmises and conjectures

Material available on record proved that complainant bank was 'aggrieved party' within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution

Petition was maintainable in circumstances.

2002 MLD 171 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2) & O. 1, R.10Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.Locus standiAggrieved partyApplication was filed against the order of interim injunctionPerson who had assailed the order was not party to the proceedings but had filed application under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C.ValidityOnly person who could have any grievance was the party against whom the order had been passedNo other person could claim to be adversely affected by the interim order

High Court, as Trial Court could not press the provisions or the spirit of S. 12(2), C.P.C., in the present circumstances, while considering the application under 0.1, R.10 C.P.C. filed by the person who was yet not a party to the proceedings.

2000 PLC(CS) 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3-F, proviso & 6, provisoTerm "aggrieved party "Meaning and implicationSuch term embraces an aggrieved party

Where appeal filed by Corporation stands abated by operation of law then the Corporation will be deemed to be an aggrieved party

Where appeal filed by employee abates, he will be the aggrieved party

When abatement takes place, the right of appeal to Service Tribunal automatically accrues contemporaneously.