Public interest litigation

Public Interest Litigation is an extraordinary jurisdiction enabling the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to address questions of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large, particularly where disadvantaged or unorganized segments of society are unable to approach the Court themselves

Such jurisdiction has been exercised in matters of environment, human rights, detention, labour, prisoners, health, education, and transparency in governance

However, it is settled by now that Public Interest Litigation cannot be misused for private motives or publicity and the petitioner must establish bona fide intent supported by credible material to justify judicial intervention

Public Interest Litigation, though entertained with a liberal approach, must be founded upon some credible material demonstrating violation of law or infringement of fundamental rights

Mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by documents or evidence, cannot constitute a valid cause for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Held, that in the garb of public interest litigation, matters are brought before the High Court which are neither of public importance nor relatable to enforcement of a fundamental right or public duty

Constitutional petitions, being non-maintainable, were dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court should entertain public interest litigation under Art. 199 of the Constitution in extremely worthy cases which genuinely affect the public and their fundamental rights (but not as a routine)

In so doing, all legal requirements must be met by petitioner under Art. 199 of the Constitution

High Court must use extraordinary care and caution before entertaining such petitions.

Constitutional petition was filed by a Member of Parliament to assail minutes of a meeting of the Sindh Cabinet as well as a letter of the SGA&C Department of the Sindh Government

Present constitutional petition appeared to be an attempt to seek publicity, without any justifiable cause of action

Public interest litigation ought not to be aimed at seeking publicity and the law required the Court to ascertain whether the applicant was acting in a bona fide manner

Public interest litigation should not be a mere adventure, an attempt to carry out a fishing expedition and/or to settle personal scores

Court must distinguish between public interest litigation and publicity motivated litigation, private interest litigation and/or politically motivated litigation

In the lis before the High Court, petitioner remained unable to set forth a case for the invocation of its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner claimed to be a social worker and assailed sub-divisions of plot in respondent housing society and illegal constructions thereon

Validity

After sub-division of plot in question area would come to 425 square yards, which was within the permissible limit as mentioned under R.18-3-1.3 of Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations, 2002

High Court declined to draw any adverse inference against owners of plot as division of plot was within the permissible limit

From location of plots in question it could neither be pleaded nor averred that plots were in the vicinity of petitioner's property and their construction would affect property of petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

If there is any abuse of trust or violation of law, it confers a right upon any member of the general public as an 'aggrieved person' to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, subject to fulfilling other requirements under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Initiative may come from a concerned citizen regarding enforcement of a collective right of society, which of course, is also his own personal right being a member and part of the society.

Any individual or small group of persons, in the garb of public interest litigation, cannot be allowed to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, on mere allegation of mala fide in respect of any decision of the executive authority, whereas, Courts are required to exercise restraint, and should ensure that unless there is a matter of public interest or enforcement of fundamental rights, only then its discretion under Art. 199 of the Constitution should be invoked and exercised by the Courts

In such type of cases, extra caution and care has to be exercised, and unless good faith on the part of petitioner is established and the matter is found to be of a public interest, and the respondent is not in a position to distinguish that the impugned transaction does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect or patent illegality, the Courts may not encourage frivolous litigation between the parties and cause miscarriage of justice.

High Court while exercising jurisdiction, particularly in cases relating to public interest litigation, can take cognizance of subsequent events during pendency of lis before it, in order to do complete justice, however it is to be done without changing the complexion of proceedings.

Petitioner/lady, being a citizen, invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking that "Aurat"/Women's March be banned

Validity

Petitioner did not qualify as an "aggrieved person" in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Petitioner , nonetheless, sought to project the matter as warranting action in the public interest, however in such cases, the Court was required to distinguish between genuine public interest litigation as opposed to litigation motivated by a desire to seek publicity or serve a private agenda

Present petition did not disclose any valid cause of action and appeared to be nothing more than an attempt to seek publicity

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine with costs, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution is required to be exercised carefully, cautiously and with circumspection to safeguard and promote public interest and not to entertain and promote speculative, hypothetical or malicious attacks that block or suspend the performance of executive functionaries by the Government

Public interest litigation is termed as a strategic aim of the legal aid movement which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses.

Such type of litigation aims to prevent the violation of constitutional or legal rights of a significant number of individuals who may be economically or socially disadvantaged, poor, or lacking in knowledge

It seeks to ensure that such violations do not go unnoticed and are appropriately addressed.

Petitioner must show that the litigation being undertaken is not driven by private or vested interests but is genuinely aimed at serving the public interest, good, or welfare.

Pro bono publico can only be applied in those cases where public interest is the primary factor and secondly for the public good or welfare of general public.

Pro bono publico can only be applied in those cases where public interest is the primary factor and secondly for the public good or welfare of general public.

Meaning of "aggrieved person" included a public spirited person who brings to the notice of the High Court a matter of public importance requiring enforcement of Fundamental Rights

Public interest litigation undertaken by a person must in the first place clearly demonstrate its complete bona fide that such litigation is not being undertaken to serve a private interest but is aimed at serving a public interest, good or welfare

Judicial review cannot be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest.

Petition filed pro bono publico to raise an issue relating to violation and enforcement of fundamental rights of the public is maintainable.

Public interest proceedings are always inquisitorial in nature, where an authority may engage in fact finding for the promotion of public interest

Commission being bestowed with the inquisitorial jurisdiction is empowered to delineate upon any fact referring towards alleged violation of substantive provisions of the Act, whether or not same is alleged by the complainant

Commission is mandated to ensure healthy and free competition throughout the region, the Commission is a regulatory body which is bestowed with a mantle purposed for the adoption of a pro-active approach to bring all matters and activities distorting competition law in line with the provisions of the Act.

High Court, in the light of recommendations of the Commission, issued directions to Cabinet Division of Federal Government:

Court had to guard against frivolous petitions as it was a matter of common observation that in the garb of public interest litigation matters were brought before the Court which were neither of public interest litigation nor related to enforcement of a fundamental right or public duty

Public interest litigation was a weapon which had to be used with great care and circumspection

Judiciary had to be extremely mindful and had to determine whether behind the veil of public interest a private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking was not lurking

High Court observed that some persons with vested interest were indulged in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives; and that such persons were often actuated by a desire to win notoriety or popularity.

Resort to public interest litigation can be made to obtain judicial redress for public injury arising from a breach of public duty

Same cannot be resorted to obtain a personal advantage.

Question of locus standi or aggrieved person implied in Art.44(2)(c) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 was sine qua non for invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of High Court but in appropriate cases, when writ petition was filed in larger interest of society / public by a lawyer or state subject, in which violation of Fundamental Rights was pointed out, then question of locus standi was to be construed liberally, subject to law.

Articles 184(3) & 199 of the Constitution gave wide powers to the superior courts to enforce fundamental rights, ensure compliance with the rule of law and provide access to justice to all citizens

Raison d'etre of public interest litigation was to break through the existing legal, technical and procedural constraints and provide justice, particularly social justice, to a particular individual, class or community, who on account of any personal deficiency or economic or social deprivation or State oppression were prevented from bringing a claim before the court of law.

Definition and scope of public interest in foreign jurisdictions including United States of America, United Kingdom, Malaysia and India stated.

Petitioner sought direction to Provincial Government to implement steps for protection of the endangered species of "Black Bucks Deers", which per the contention of petitioner, were almost extinct

Validity

Black Bucks Deers were endangered species and protected from hunting under S. 9(ii) of the Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 1974 and were also mentioned in the Third Schedule of the said Act

Provincial Government, was therefore, required to protect and preserve Black Bucks Deers in compliance with the provisions of the Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 1974

Protection of Black Bucks Deers was not only the fundamental duty of the Government but also of every citizen to ensure implementation of Fundamental Right to Life guaranteed under the Constitution

High Court directed Provincial Government to implement recommendations made by the court-appointed Commission's report titled, "Black Bucks Commission Report dated 06.09.2019" and to ensure that it meets its obligations under all relevant laws for protection of Black Bucks Deers

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

By way of impugned notification issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) date of PMS exams was announced as 22-08-2020 instead of December, 2020, which was the usual month every year for holding such examinations

Pleas of petitioners that due to COVID-19 ('Corona') virus all educational/academic institutions and book depots remained closed, therefore, the petitioners could not prepare themselves for such exams; that Corona virus was still spreading and affecting the lives of people, therefore, by conducting the exams earlier there was danger to the lives of the petitioners, and that the petitioners approached the PPSC to conduct the examinations as per routine in December but examinations were not being postponed, which infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution

Held, that as all the State functionaries, bodies, authorities, Courts and other State departments remained functioning during the situation of COVID-19 and nothing was suspended or halted, therefore, mere holding of examination on 22-08-2020 by the PPSC would not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the PPSC for the written examination comprehensively provided precautions to be taken by the candidates and invigilators before and after the examination and during the conduct of examination as well

According to PPSC, examination were being held with all safety measures

Clearly, there were no cogent reasons to postpone the PMS examination as was sought by the petitioners

High Court directed that PPSC was to conduct the examinations as per schedule by strictly following the restrictions mentioned in the SOPs and the candidates shall also be bound to obey said SOPs; that for the protection of lives of the candidates, the PPSC was to ensure strict observance of SOPs laid down by the National Command and Operations Center (NCOC), and the Provincial Government, during the examinations; that all the candidates appearing in examination were also bound to follow the internal SOPs for the written examination in PPSC, and that even if examination were conducted in the month of December, again all the concerned would have to strictly follow the advisories/ guidelines of Government regarding social-distancing and sanitization etc. at the examination centres

Constitutional petition was disposed of.

Petitioners, Deputy Administrator and tenant of Evacuee Trust Property Board, assailed order passed by Revisional Authority through constitutional petitions

Contentions of respondent were that the tenant was not competent to challenge the order of Revisional Authority and that the Deputy Administrator was not competent to file Constitutional petition against the order of his own Authority, which amounted to disobedience of its order

Validity

Property belonged to Evacuee Trust Property Board and every citizen was very much competent to challenge the perverse order of the Authority

Every citizen was aggrieved person if such property was being embezzled/ misappropriated by any person through fraudulent means

Secretary/Revisional Authority enjoyed two fold jurisdiction, firstly he was head of the department and his administrative orders were binding upon all his subordinates, whereas while performing quasi-judicial functions his orders were amenable to challenge by any person including his subordinate

Federal Government had authorized the Deputy/Assistant Administrators to institute and defend the suit/proceedings in the courts of law

High Court held that the Deputy Administrator was competent to file constitutional petition against the revisional order of the Secretary.

Petitioners, invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with personal or financial interest in a public procurement process, who claim to be public interest litigants, could not be permitted to challenge with impunity bidding processes initiated by public agencies

Delay in approaching High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution to initiate public interest litigation could be held to be a valid defence on which such litigation may be defeated.

Petitioners were aggrieved of encroaching upon by municipal authorities into a children's park for construction of shops and quarters

Validity

Public place was being used for purpose other than for which it was created

Said plot was a public place and any other activity was beyond scope of relevant law which was encroachment upon valuable right of citizens

For interest of public at large any construction in shape of shops, houses, quarters and canteens was in violation of Constitution, laws, rules and regulations provided for the purpose

High Court directed the authorities to demolish shops which was a commercial activity and to add same to part of park or it should be utilized for zoo and other playing areas

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Public interest litigation was a powerful tool for individuals and groups for combating illegalities, injustice and social ills, which promoted and protected the larger public interest in case of violation of any fundamental rights

As long as the public interest prayed for was bona fide and not based on any vested interests, the principles of locus standi/aggrieved person were to be interpreted liberally by the Courts

Superior courts were bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of citizens in exercise of jurisdiction conferred via Art.199 or Art.184 (3) of the Constitution.

Constitutional petition seeking a direction to administration of the hospital to vacate the ground floor of the mosque for worshippers

Maintainability

Present case was in the nature of public interest litigation and the petitioner had filed present petition as a 'pro bono publico'

Petitioner had alleged that the act of administration of the hospital allowing establishment of a canteen on the place of the mosque was illegal and unlawful as being in excess of the official authority and powers

Petitioner was seeking a direction against the illegal use and unauthorized possession over ground portion of the mosque, which was meant for prayers by the public at large

Petitioner claimed to be a regular "namazi" (worshipper) of the said mosque, and even otherwise being the citizen of the country he had every right to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court for taking notice of abuse of trust and misuse of authority by public functionaries

Issues raised and prayer made by the petitioner came within the ambit and scope of Art.199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution

Petitioner fell within the definition of an "aggrieved person" and he had locus standi to file present petition as contemplated in Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Constitutional petition seeking a direction to administration of the hospital to vacate the ground floor of the mosque for worshippers

Maintainability

Plea of respondents that present petition was not maintainable as it involved disputed questions of fact

Validity

Petitioner in support of his claim had mainly relied upon the master plan of the hospital, which was an official document

Since the whole case of the petitioner was based on official record, therefore, it could not be said to be a matter involving disputed questions of fact

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable.

Constitutional petition seeking a direction to administration of the hospital to vacate the ground floor of the mosque for worshippers

Held, that the site map which was the basic document to resolve the controversy between the parties did not suggest or prove the existence of canteen on the ground floor of the mosque in any manner

Besides the site map the existing building structure of the mosque which showed location of "Mehrab" of the mosque on the ground floor led to an irresistible conclusion that whole of the area of mosque on the ground floor was part of the mosque

Nothing on record showed that the administration of the hospital had ever decided to convert the ground floor of the mosque into a canteen or allowed its use other than for offering prayers nor sought amendment in the Master Plan from the competent authority so as to segregate the area of the mosque from the ground floor which was a part of the same structure

Hospital administration had allowed establishment of the canteen on the area of the mosque in complete disregard of the master plan and in total oblivion of the fact that according to the Injunctions of Islam and Shariah any place once declared as mosque could not be used for any other purpose

Continuation of the canteen in the space meant for a mosque and which formed an integral part thereof being the inner part or ground floor of the same premises would definitely undermine its sanctity, cleanliness and purity besides becoming a continuous source of disturbance for the people offering prayers in its upper portion

Admittedly, a canteen was a place where people generally entered and sat in a free and relaxed mood for consuming food etc. and where making noise, cracking jokes, using slang language, hustle bustle, playing songs and music were common phenomenon

By unlawfully converting the ground floor of the mosque into a canteen, the hospital administration had acted in excess of their powers and authority, vested in them by the law

High Court directed that hospital administration shall get vacated the ground floor of the mosque, which was being used as a canteen, within a period of one month, and that since the contractor running the canteen was a bona fide contractor, he was to be provided an alternate place by the hospital administration for the remaining period of his contract.

Public interest litigation undertaken by a citizen must in the first place transparently demonstrate its complete bona fides; and further that such litigation was not being undertaken to serve a private or vested interest and was demonstrably aimed at serving public interest, good or welfare.

Grievance of petitioners was that the Project was carried out without lawful authority and it was also against the public interest; held, that present petition was in the nature of public interest litigation

Petitioners being residents of the city would surely be affected by the works to be carried out under the Project causing environmental impact upon their dwelling places and thereby infringing upon their right to life, as provided under Art. 9 of the Constitution

Petitioners would, thus, come within scope of an aggrieved person, as envisaged in Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable in circumstances.

Petitioners filed public interest petition impugning inaction of Provincial Government in addressing the issue of pollution and hazardous smog in the city

Validity

Dense smog was physically visible in the city and air monitoring showed that same had gone above the highest level and Doctors had confirmed that such levels of smog were hazardous to health of residents

High Court observed that in spite of such conditions, no preventive measures had been taken to protect life and health of people and that High Court was bound to protect fundamental rights of people and could enforce Art.9 of the Constitution read with internationally recognized "precautionary principle" and accordingly till such time Government proposed a detailed action plan and keeping in view emergent nature of current crises

High Court directed that its laid-out plan be put in place and a revised smog policy and declaration of public health emergency be submitted before High Court within 3 months

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Principles.

To invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, one was required to first qualify test of being aggrieved person and then to show that his case fell in any of the categories so defined by Art.199 of the Constitution that there was no alternate legal remedy except the petition

To satisfy requirements of an aggrieved person in public interest litigation under Art.199 of the Constitution, petitioner was required to disclose a personal interest in performance of legal duty owed to him which if not performed would result in loss of some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege in liberty or franchise except in relief in the nature of Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto the person had to show that he was an aggrieved person; it was also imperative for petitioner to show that any of his proprietary or personal right as recognized by law was invaded or denied

Any person who failed to demonstrate such prerequisites as recognized by law had no locus standi or any cause of action to seek any relief under Art.199 of the Constitution

Petitioner remained unable to meet the requirements and had no locus standi to file petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner, impugned procurement of police uniforms by the Provincial Government and police Force, inter alia, on the ground that the same was a violation of public procurement laws

Validity

Perusal of the record, in the present case, revealed that the tender for the procurement was done strictly in accordance with the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 and no specific violation of law was pointed out by petitioner

Introduction of new police uniforms was a policy issue and did not call for interference by the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

High Court observed that there had been no serious effort made by the petitioner to verify whether contract for such procurement was in accordance with the Punjab Public Procurement Rules, 2014 and that such petitions brought a bad name to public interest litigation and lowered credibility of the same in the eyes of the Court and such practice was therefore strongly deprecated

High Court further observed that the petitioner had not only abused the process of public interest litigation but also burdened the Court and drawn upon its time and resources, besides, eating into the time allocated for other cases

Constitutional petition was dismissed, with imposition of special costs of Rupees Ten Thousand on petitioner, accordingly.

Nature, scope and precondition for petition pertaining to Public Interest Litigation.

Such petition could only be withdrawn with the permission of the Court as it was not a dominus litis, and the petitioner in such a petition, had no right to withdraw the Constitutional petition on his/her sweet will.

Contention of petitioner was that the housing and population census under Ss.2(c) & 31, of the General Statistics (Reorganization) Act, 2011 should include all classes of the population and by not enumerating persons with disabilities in the upcoming national census, the same was incomplete and violative of Fundamental Rights

Validity

Per Art.31 of the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities, ratified by Pakistan, in 2011; an international obligation was cast upon Pakistan to collect appropriate information regarding persons with disabilities in order to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the purposes of the Convention

Lack of data and information on disability and situation of persons with disabilities at the national level contributed to invisibility of persons with disabilities in official statistics, presenting an obstacle to achieving development planning and implementation that was inclusive of persons with disabilities

Depriving persons with disabilities from being included and counted in the National Census would offend their welfare and future prospects as the State had no credible information regarding their population, hence, exclusion of persons with disabilities from Census (head count) was in violation of right to life and human dignity under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution besides being discriminatory under Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court observed that having a general headcount of persons with disabilities was more important than having no information at all regarding the same, and the said mechanism would not upset the calendar of the upcoming population census and was workable

High Court directed that census codes, in machine readable formats, should include collecting information regarding disability along with gender and Pakistan Bureau of Statistics to ensure that the next population census included a special column relating to persons with disabilities along with various categories of disabilities

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought direction assailing a proposed acquisition of 51% shares of a private company by a foreign buyer vide a share purchase agreement

Contention of the petitioner inter alia was that the said transaction harmed public interest and was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and offended Arts.9, 19-A & 26 of the Constitution

Petitioner further contended that per Art. 19-A of the Constitution, the public had right to information in respect of such transactions

Validity

Contention of the petitioner hardly established a public wrong or public injury warranting redressal by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution and to accept the petitioner's contentions would open door for an invasion of virtually every private transaction on the touchstone of alleged evasion of some duty or tax etc.

High Court observed that High Court should not embark on roving inquiries into private transactions such as that identified by petitioner under banner of "public interest" especially where there were other regulatory authorities in the field mandated by a statutory responsibility of maintaining vigil their respective spheres

Right to information under Art.19-A of the Constitution was of immense value in promoting transparency by ensuring that citizens had knowledge of matters concerning public administration, but the same did not mean that commercial transactions in the private domain which did not have any direct nexus with matter of public administration be opened up for scrutiny before the courts on touchstone of Art.19-A of the Constitution at behest of any member of public whose curiosity may be piqued

Constitutional petition, therefore, did not fall within the domain of "public interest" was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed.

Where the petitioner acted for his own economic benefit or business interest by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, the petition could not be held to be in the public interest

Personal interest could not be enforced through the process of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution in the garb of public interest litigation

High Court had the duty to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice was not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for personal gain under the garb of public interest litigation.

Public interest litigation had been termed as a strategic arm of the legal aid movement which was intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses who constituted the low visibility area of humanity

Public Interest Litigation discarded the traditional concept of locus standi, which provided that only the person whose legal rights were being violated could approach the Court for redress

High Court observed that public interest litigation in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts by public-spirited citizens had helped to ameliorate the miseries of thousands of persons, arising from repression, governmental omissions or excesses, administrative lethargy or arbitrariness.

Petitioner in presence of alternate remedies should have approached said forums instead of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner to satisfy the requirement of "aggrieved person" in public interest litigation needed to disclose personal interest in the performance of legal duty owed to him.

Overlapping between functions/ jurisdiction of Local Government and Lahore Development Authority ("LDA") in respect of development work

Harmonious interpretation of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 and Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975

Provincial and Local Government to work together in public interest

High Court struck down the Project in question as being unconstitutional by holding that the powers and functions of LDA under Ss. 6, 13, 13A, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 34A, 34B, 35, 38 & 46 of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, to the extent that they usurped, trumped, encroached, diluted and abridged the powers, responsibility and authority devolved on to the elected representatives of the Local Government under Art. 140A of the Constitution through Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, were ultra vires Arts. 9, 14, 17 & 25 of the Constitution and offensive to Arts.32, 37(i) & 140A of the Constitution; that proceeding with the "Signal Free Corridor Project" by LDA would be in violation of Art. 140A of the Constitution

Validity

High Court discussed Fundamental Rights under Arts. 9, 14, 17 & 25 of the Constitution in its judgment, but did not state as to how said Fundamental Rights were violated or encroached upon by the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, which were struck down

Judgment of High Court did not make any attempt to put down provisions of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (which were struck down) next to the said Fundamental Rights of the Constitution and state why the two could not be reconciled

Impugned judgment of High Court did not discuss as to why said Fundamental Rights could not be exercised on account of the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, which were struck down and did not discuss as to why given the size and expansion of the population of Lahore city, and the nature and complexity of the problems and the needs of a mega city, like Lahore, it could not be dealt with and its growth and development promoted in a manner different from other parts of the Province

Such a classification was not per se unreasonable

Government must not be compelled to follow a cookie cutter approach or else to suffer judicial condemnation

Where a statute was not ex facie repugnant to Fundamental Rights under the Constitution but was capable of being so administered, it could not be struck down unless the party challenging it could prove that it had been actually so administered

Petitioners, in the present case, could not establish as to how the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 had been administered in a way that was repugnant to the Fundamental Rights under the Constitution, thus, there was no basis for the High Court to strike down the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975

Provisions of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, and Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 had to be read in harmony

Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, was to be regarded as an enabling statute; it allowed LDA to act in support of and to complement the Local Government in the exercise of its functions and responsibilities

Many situations could arise which might warrant LDA to work in consultation with or support the Local Government within the purview of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 e.g. where the Local Government was unable to act because of a lack of resources or capacity, or where the project was of such a nature that it spilled over from the territory of one Local Government to another or where the size of the project was beyond the financial capacity of the Local Government to execute, the LDA could step in and work with the Local Government

Said situations were not exhaustive and time may throw up other situations and create circumstances which may warrant action to be taken by LDA in consultation with the Local Government

When harmoniously construed, there was no conflict between the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, and Punjab Local Government Act, 2013

High Court in its judgment also ignored the fact that elections to Local Government in the Province had not taken place as yet, and, thus, Local Government did not exist

Developmental work, even if it fell within the domain of the Local Government, could not have been abandoned and all projects brought to a standstill simply because the Local Government did not exist

Even if functions were assumed to be within the exclusive domain of the Local Government and could only be exercised by it to the exclusion of everyone else, even then, given the present ground reality, the Provincial Government could not be taken to task for carrying out development work

Further, the High Court gave no reason why there being a vacuum (due to the non-existence of a Local Government), LDA and/or Provincial Government could not carry out development works, thus, it was not at all necessary to interfere in the Project in question

In the vacuum resulting from the absence of Local Government institutions, the initiation, approval and execution of the disputed Project by the Provincial Government through its agency, LDA, was valid

Supreme Court directed that Project in question may accordingly be completed subject to provision of additional facilities for pedestrians, inter alia, including road crossing and passes at intervals of one-kilometer or less along the project road distance; that new project falling within the domain of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation for approval or execution shall not be undertaken by the Provincial Government or its agency without prior consultation and consent, unless such consent was withheld without justified reasons in respect of the project; that Provincial Government was under a duty to establish harmonious working relationship with an elected Local Government wherein respect was accorded to the views and decisions of the latter

Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

In public interest litigation, upon being provided with requisite information, the Supreme Court had the inherent power to re-visit its orders/decisions

In such a case, the rigors of review jurisdiction shall stricto sensu not be attracted.

Contention of petitioner/appellant was that only one entity had tendered its bid for the works, thus there was lack of competition which would lead to loss of public exchequer

Validity

First bidding process was annulled by the competent authority after (bid) evaluation process drew criticism and controversy

Second (i.e. current) round of tender bidding had not drawn any complaint, criticism or objection from the public or private sector watchmen authorities or the media

Present case lacked any concrete allegation of wrong doing against the award of contract

Allegation levelled by the petitioner namely, that the bid given by the party in the second bidding process was defective and unconscionable, was conjectural

Petitioner's challenge appeared to be speculative, hypothetical and therefore colourable

Despite lapse of more than 14 months after the second round of bidding concluded in the present case, resulting in issuance of letter of acceptance, no factual material was brought by the petitioner before the High Court or before the Supreme Court to substantiate or exemplify the allegation made against the contract awardee

Contract execution in the present case had not progressed since issuance of the letter of acceptance, and public interest had actually suffered as a result of the delay

By the state of disclosure of allegations, facts and evidence, in the present case, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any wrongdoing and harm having been done to public interest

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Public interest litigation undertaken by a citizen must in the first place transparently demonstrate its complete bona fides

Litigant must show that such litigation was not being undertaken to serve a private or vested interest but was demonstrably aimed at serving the public interest, good or welfare

Public interest litigation must be based on concrete facts that were duly substantiated or were verifiable

Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior courts was exercised to safeguard and promote the public interest and not to entertain and promote speculative, hypothetical or malicious attacks that blocked or suspended the performance of the executive functions by government.