Locus Standi of Petitioner

Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') passed an order (setting aside outrightly the confiscation of a smuggled vehicle) accepting version of the appellant before the Tribunal

Petition before the High Court was filed, for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal, notwithstanding the apparent fact that the petitioner was not the appellant (before the Tribunal) and had no actionable nexus therewith, instead (the petition had been filed) by a lady advocate claiming herself as an attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal

Validity

High Court observed that the appellant before the Tribunal (namely Adam Khan) was someone else other than the present petitioner and prima facie the only place the petitioner found mention in the Tribunal Order was in the title ostensibly as the attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal

Other documents (like Detention Receipt) releted to the appellant before the Tribunal

Index of the present petition showed the name of appellant before the Tribunal (Adam Khan) to be the petitioner, however, the typed name (Adam Khan) had been crossed out in ink and the name of the petitioner was hand written instead while the affidavits supporting the memorandum of petition and other CMAs had Adam Khan in the title and the same had been sworn by the petitioner, representing herself to be the attorney of the petitioner

Regarding said contradictions / discrepancies / corrections, on confrontation, lady advocate present before the High Court, claiming herself to be attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal, had failed to provide any explanation, whereas she had represented herself to be a practicing advocate of the High Court

Same did not confer any license upon her to act in a manner not befitting to an Officer of the Court

While conscious mischief was reasonably apprehended in the present matter, however, out of compassion the High Court confined findings to the case itself and directed no further proceedings with respect to the petitioner herself

Petitioner before the High Court had failed to demonstrate any locus standi to maintain the present petition

Constitutional petition, along with pending applications, was hereby dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Proposed amendment in Schedule (I) and (II) of the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986 ('the Rules') during the period of Caretaker Government

Legality

Multiple reliefs sought

Effect

Contention of the petitioner was based on an apprehension that the Department after approval of proposed amendment in the Rules ibid would ignore all the other wings of the Department

Contention of the petitioner revolved around a speculative scenario rooted in a hypothetical situation, specifically the Government allegedly introducing additional agenda item without prior Caretaker Cabinet review, which rested on conjectures only and lacked any direct and adverse effect on the petitioner and further lacked the necessary foundation for challenging the proposed amendment

It is inherent duty of the Government to formulate and amend Rules within its respective Departments

"Aggrieved person" denotes a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused to him something which he was legally entitled to

Person aggrieved invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution must establish a direct or indirect injury to himself and substantial interest in subject matter of proceedings, however, for the purpose of issuance of writ of quo waranto and habeas corpus, being aggrieved is not a mandatory requirement

Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and courts have to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and or publicity seeking is not lurking

Neither the petitioner was an aggrieved person nor he had any locus standi to challenge the 'proposed amendment in Sindh Government Rules of Business and as regards the other relief[s] sought by the petitioner, he had failed to satisfy the Court as to issuing a writ, and the requested actions, in fact, were within the purview of Legislature or the Executive

Constitutional petition being misconceived was dismissed in limine.

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

Whether petitioner, who neither obtained tender documents nor participated in the bidding process would come within the purview of "aggrieved person"

Held, that it was sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, that the petitioner was an aggrieved person and also had locus standi

In the present case the petitioner-association did not participate in the bid, as such, neither the petitioner was a bidder nor a potential bidder, so it could not be considered an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution

Petitioner also did not have the locus standi to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to establish any violation of law and rules, thus was not an aggrieved person on such account also

From the perusal of the record, it was clear that the bidders, who had actually participated in the bid process, in presence of the terms and conditions, issued by the respondent-Engineering Council, for the construction works, did not raise any objection in the existing terms and conditions of bid documents

Constitutional petition was dismissed as being not maintainable.

For initiation of proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution it was sine qua non that the petitioner should have locus standi, i.e. petitioner should be an aggrieved party from the impugned action.

Jurisprudential connection was established between the citizens' rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the appointment process for posts to administrative agencies/ regulatory bodies

Power of judicial review conferred jurisdiction and authority on the court to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public office against relevant statutory provisions

In seeking a relief under Art.199(1) (b)(ii) of the Constitution, there was no requirement that a party seeking (judicial) review must allege facts showing that he was himself adversely affected nor did it insulate executive action from judicial review, nor any public interest from being protected through the judicial process

Court would not seek proof of direct injury though it may enquire into the motives of the petitioner.

Right to acquire information of the entire process (of selection of the Chairman PEMRA) could be culled out from Art.19A of the Constitution and thus enforced through the remedy of Art.199(1)(b)(ii)

Petitioner was enforcing his right enshrined in Art.19A and thus had sufficient interest in maintaining present petition

Petitioner did not have to allege an injury in fact

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority was a buffer between the Government and the right to information which impacted a vast majority of the people of the country, and its role as a gatekeeper would be seriously undermined if the appointment process under S.6 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was tainted and suffered from the vice of political intrusion

From the dicta of the superior courts read in conjunction with Art.19A of the Constitution, as also from the very nature of PEMRA as a regulator, procedural and substantive requirements on public authorities were imposed by the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation'

Appointment of the Chairman PEMRA generated a legitimate expectation and the public authority/ Executive was required to take the expectation into account

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.

Right to acquire information of the entire process (of selection of the Chairman PEMRA) could be culled out from Art.19A of the Constitution and thus enforced through the remedy of Art.199(1)(b)(ii)

Petitioner was enforcing his right enshrined in Art.19A and thus had sufficient interest in maintaining present petition

Petitioner did not have to allege an injury in fact

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority was a buffer between the Government and the right to information which impacted a vast majority of the people of the country, and its role as a gatekeeper would be seriously undermined if the appointment process under S.6 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was tainted and suffered from the vice of political intrusion

From the dicta of the superior courts read in conjunction with Art.19A of the Constitution, as also from the very nature of PEMRA as a regulator, procedural and substantive requirements on public authorities were imposed by the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation'

Appointment of the Chairman PEMRA generated a legitimate expectation and the public authority/ Executive was required to take the expectation into account

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.

Principles.

Constitutional petition seeking provision of a 'bullet proof' vehicle and 'jammer vehicle' along with security personnel for former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Locus standi of petitioners

'Aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution

Scope

Petitioners, who were members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, did not fall within the definition of 'aggrieved persons' as there was no Fundamental Right expressed by them in their arguments nor the same was demonstrated on record as to how they could claim rights on behalf of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for providing him a bullet proof and jammer vehicles, especially when the former Chief Justice himself had not expressed such thought till date

Even otherwise, from the date of filing of present Constitutional petitions, not a single incident had been referred where any threat had been extended to the former Chief Justice

Internal reports of Ministry of Interior requisitioned by the High Court also showed that no threat was reported to the former Chief Justice

Furthermore provision for security at residences of former Judges of the Supreme Court had already been provided in terms of para.25(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 [as amended by the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 2016]

Report submitted by the Federal Government showing the number of security and other personnel deployed at residences of former Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court showed that the applicable law had not been followed in letter and spirit

Petitioners had no locus standi to file present constitutional petitions as they were not aggrieved persons and neither any personal right or Fundamental Right of theirs had been infringed

Constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstacnes.

Any candidate whose nomination papers had been rejected could not maintain an election petition before the Election Tribunal under S.52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Meaning of expressions "candidate" and "petitioner" used in S.52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 was limited to "a contesting candidate" and did not include a candidate whose nomination papers had been rejected

Only a validly nominated candidate who had neither withdrawn nor retired from the elections i.e. a contesting candidate could file or maintain an election petition under S.52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.

Informer, having brought to the attention of the court an alleged contempt of court, was thereafter, divested of any vested right to pursue the same

Matter, thereafter, was essentially between the court and accused/contemnors, however, exception to said principle had been provided under S. 11(2) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 that any person laying false information relating to the commission of an alleged contempt, would himself be liable to the proceedings for contempt of court.

Non-constitution of National Industrial Relations Commission, before which appeal was to be filed, for a certain time period did not take away the right of petitioner to prefer an appeal

Petitioner could not furnish any proof regarding his membership of respondent/Association (to identify infringement of any of his rights), therefore, he had no locus standi to file constitutional petition

Constitutional petition lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.

Appointment of respondent as Chairman, Pakistan Cricket Board ("the Board") was challenged before High Court by way of a constitutional petition with the plea that petitioner was a graduate cricketer since 1980, therefore he was an "aggrieved person"

Validity

Petitioner did not have a cause of action to file a constitutional petition

Petitioner was required to establish direct or indirect injury to him and substantial interest in the proceedings

Petitioner had nothing to do with the post of Chairman of the Board

By appointment of respondent as Chairman of the Board, no loss was caused to the petitioner, and no right of his had been infringed

Petitioner was not a contender for the post of Chairman of the Board, so he had no cause of action or locus standi to file a constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was not maintainable, in circumstances.

Proceedings of writ of quo warranto were not strictly adversarial in nature and could be put into motion by any person (who need not be aggrieved)

Said proceedings, therefore, carried an inquisitorial rigour to protect the "public office" and, more importantly, the public institution behind it.

Not necessary for a petitioner in each case to be direct affectee of an action or inaction of public functionary or promulgation of any law against fundamental rights

Despite locus standi or aggrieved person being sine qua non for maintainability of such petition, High Court in public interest litigation without treating a petitioner as aggrieved person could strike done any law, if found same to be violative of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions

Principles.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution was not a closed shop limited to adversarial proceedings to be initiated by a wronged litigant seeking redressal of his individual grievance

Rule of locus standi included enforcement of the constitutional rights of groups or class of persons, and public at large especially in the domain of public interest litigation to ensure a meaningful protection of the rule of law to all citizens.

Where there is violation of Fundamental Rights of a class or a group of persons who are unable to seek redress from the court, then the traditional rule of locus standi can be dispensed with, and the procedure available in public interest litigation can he made use of, if it is brought to the notice of the court by a person acting bona fide

Article 184(3) of the Constitution provides abundant scope for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of an individual or a group or class of persons in the event of their infraction and it would be for the Supreme Court to lay down the contours generally in order to regulate the proceedings of group or class actions from case to case.