The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed various applications before Respondent No, 1, but he did not decide the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved fried this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents leased out the land in secret manners and in violation of rules and regulations of the respondents, which is being used by the lessees, who established the shops over the land in-question qua fruits, vegetables, meat and fish sellers, which has created crucial situation for the inhabitants of the area, specially the house of the petitioner is quite adjacent to the land in-question because all the shop-keepers have through their wastage of vegetables, fish and meat on the road near the wall of the house of the petitioner.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that the petitioner filed this Constitutional petition in representative capacity without fulfilling the mandatory provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 CPC and the principles of CPC are applicable in Constitutional proceedings, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Hussain Bakhsh us. Settlement Commissioner, RWP etc." (PLD 1970 SC 1).
"Anjuman Arain Bhera vs. Abdul Rashid and others" (PLD 1973 Lahore 500).
The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition without impleading the lessees in the Constitutional petition, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Rameez-ul-Haq's case" (PLD 1992 SC 221). The contents of. the Constitutional petition reveal that the petitioner has filed this petition qua nuisance created by the lessees without fulfilling the requirements prescribed under Section 91 CPC. Mere reading of prayer clause of the Constitutional petition clearly reveals that the petitioner has to file civil suit before the competent Court for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has alleged serious allegations against the public functions and the petitioner has already filed application before Respondent No,
1. It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the applications of citizens without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M/s. Airport Support Service's case". (1998 S.C.M.R.
2268).
5. In this view of the matter let a copy of writ petition be sent to Respondent No, 1, 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, lessees and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order, preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court, after verifying the record of the respondents, in case the petitioner had already filed application before him and he has not passed any order on the same till date and also the petitioner has not filed any civil suit before the competent Court till date. The petitioner is directed to appear before Respondent No, 1 in his office at 11:00 a.m. on 27.5.2004 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.
6. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel of the respondents, who is directed to send the same to Respondent No, 1 for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide on copy of this order to the aforesaid learned standing counsel for onward transmission to Respondent No, 1 for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of Copy "Dasti" on payment of usual charges.