' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is originally owner of land which was sold by the petitioner to the respondents for the purpose to construct the Colony in-question, which is situated in some part of Khasra No.619 and out of the said Khasra, some land is still in possession of the petitioner, which is also situated in remaining part of Khasra No.619. The said Colony was established in the year, 1966 without any objection. The petitioner and others are using the said passage/way in question. There is a passage before establishment of said Colony since long and the management of Colony allowed the petition0 and other people to use the passage in-question. Subsequently, the management of Colony has started to construct wall around the said Colony to close the passage in-question. The petitioner and others being aggrieved filed applications before respondents Nos.1 and 2, who did not decide the same. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the management of Colony has no lawful authority to close the passage of the petitioner, which has been in the use of petitioner since long before establishment of the said Colony in the year, 1966. He further submits that the respondents have allowed another person to use the passage in-question, therefore, action of the management of colony is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that in case, passage is closed, then the petitioner and other inhabitants of the area, would not be able to send their children in the educational institutions, which are situated in the said Colony and also not in a position to perform their prayers in the Jamia Mosque, which is also situated in the area of Colony.
He further submits that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are duty bound to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, which is their duty by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that the principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Hussain Bakhsh v.
Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others" (PLD 1970 SC 1). The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition in the representative capacity, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable Without fulfilling the mandatory requirements prescribed under Order I, rule 8, C.P.C., as per principle laid down by the D.B. Of this Court in "Anjuman Araian Bhera v. Abdur Rashid and 5 others" (PLD 1973 Lahore 500). It is also settled principle of law that the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition qua public nuisance/public matters, therefore, it is paramount duty of the petitioner to fulfil the requirements prescribed under section 91 and 92 of the C.P.C. Before filing the Constitutional petition, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
' It is also settled principle of law that the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the application of the petitioner without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time. As mentioned above, the petitioner has filed application before respondents Nos.1 and 2, but they did not decide the same till date. It is pertinent to mention here that the public functionaries receive their salaries from public exchequer, therefore; it is their duty by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act to decide the application of citizens without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Messrs Airport Support Service's case" (1998 SCM R 2268). In spite of all the aforesaid principles qua non-maintainability of the Constitutional petition, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the public functionaries to act strictly in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution, while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others (PLD 1981 SC 612) and Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano" (2003 SCM R 325).
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle in the interest of justice and fair play, let copy of writ petition be 'sent to respondent No.2, who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner, respondents Nos.5 and 6, representative of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order, preferably within 15 days after receiving the order of this Court, after verifying the record of department, in case, the petitioner has already filed application before him and he has not decided the same till date. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 4-4-2005, who is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law either himself or send the same to competent authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of this writ petition along with all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Add. Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to aforesaid learned law officer for onward transmission to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.