' Instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks a direction to the respondents for making selection of Artists, on merits and to hold the exhibition of the work of the Eminent Artists, being held by them in the name and style of "South Asian Arts Show" by inclusion of Mr. Iqbal Jafaree and Mr. Jamal Shah, the eminent artists of this country, therein.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that the Chief Minister's Task Force which was formed about a year ago with an objective to uplift imagine of Lahore city, as a vibrant city of the world, arranged an exhibition in the name and style of "South Asian Arts. Show" from 22-11-2004 to 5-12-2004. For the Selection of artists to represent Pakistan and participate in the exhibition, the Task Force required Mrs. Saleema Hashmi (respondent No,10) a curator of the exhibition, Professor Ijaz ul Hassan, an eminent critic/Chairman Artist Association Punjab and Professor Lala Rukh of National College of Arts, to provide their respective a list of the names of the old masters, as well as the young voices from Pakistan. The Task Force accordingly, out of the furnished three lists, picked up the names of 7 Artists which were common in all the three lists. The criteria/formula for selecting the participants in the exhibition was formulated to provide fairness to all the artists and to avoid discrimination, in view of the prestigious nature of the event. Since, the names of Mr. Iqbal Jafaree and Mr. Jamal Shah did not figure in any of the3 lists, they were not called upon to participate in the exhibition. The petitioner is aggrieved of his own non-selection as curator and on behalf of the above noted artists who remained excluded from the exhibition and maintained the instant petition with the prayer noted above.
3. Respondents Nos.2 and 10 were required to furnish the report and parawise comments besides arranging representation on their behalf but in response to it, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the report and appeared through the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab. They opposing the petition on merits, raised objections regarding maintainability of the Constitutional petition. On the first hand, it was urged that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution, thus, cannot maintain the petition in hand and on the other hand, it was stressed that this petition does not demonstrate infringement/ violation of any law or of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution or any other law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment in the case of Parvaiz Elahi v.
Province of Punjab and another (PLD 1993 Lahore 595), urged that a Constitution petition in the public interest/litigation is maintainable before this Court and he emphasized the lapse of nonadherence of the respondents to rights of the petitioner and those of Mr. Iqbal Jafaree and Mr. Jamal Shah the asserted eminent artists to participate in the exhibition. Further detailing his arguments he submitted that whenever violation of any fundamental right conferred by the Constitution occurs this Court can come to the rescue of the aggrieved person in terms of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of PLD 1965 SC 68 and Sri Manmatha Nath Krui v. Molvi Muhammad Mukhlees ur Rehman and others (PLD 1969 SC 565). It was also argued that ample jurisdiction vested in this Court for judicial review of the acts done/undertaken by the Executive/ Administrative Authorities, especially those which were tainted with malice and discrimination. Reference was made to certain law reports and judicial review of 1996 in support of stance of the petitioner. He further elaborated his arguments by submitting that this Court had required respondent No,10 to submit her report and parawise comments but she being the Chief Executive of the Exhibition did not comply the order, thus, factual aspect of the petition may be presumed to be correct, to her extent.
5. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended here-with. The petitioner without referring to any provisions of law where under he had a vested right to become a curator of the exhibition, mainly stressed that Mr. Iqbal Jafaree being a pioneer of miniature painting and calligraphy paintings in Pakistan and likewise, Mr. Jamal Shah being a world class artist working in Pakistan, had right of participation but have been ousted from the exhibition out of discrimination in spite of representations by the petitioner in this behalf of the Chief Minister of the Punjab and Mr. Fawad Rabbani, Deputy Secretary of the Government of the Punjab/Secretary Task Force, but the same remained, unreplied having the element of disgrace to those artists, with a negative reflection on the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 1, 10, 18, 24, 25, 30, 44 and 227 A of the Constitution.
Invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in a representative capacity is not permissible in view of language of Article 199 which confers this right only to an aggrieved person. Since, on account of the claimed exclusion of both the above noted artists, the petitioner cannot hold brief on their behalf and cannot file the petition under adjudication in representative capacity being himself not aggrieved of that exclusion, thus the petition is not maintainable. Article 199 of the Constitution reads as under:-- "199.(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,--
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order---
(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, function in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or
(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or
(b) ..........................
(c) on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person cr authority, including any Government exercising any power, or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II.
(2) Subject to the Constitution, the right to move a High Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part H shall not be abridged.
3.
6. The above-reproduced Article of the Constitution clearly demonstrates that there is no room for maintaining any petition thereunder, by a person not aggrieved or in pro bono publico, under the cover of public interest, without disclosing how by non-participation of any Artist, the public at large would suffer or the welfare of the people would become at stake. Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, not only proceeded on all together different facts but also lay down a distinctive rule of law which is not applicable in the case in hand. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Democratic Workers Union CBA v. State Bank of Pakistan and others" (2002 PLC
(CS) 614), graciously relied on an earlier judgment of that Court reported as Malik Asad and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law Justice and Parliament Affairs Islamabad and others (PLD 1998 SC 161) and mandated that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot entertain a petition relating to public interest/litigation unless and until the person invoking the jurisdiction succeeded in establishing a violation of his own legal or fundamental right. It was also held that this Court would not exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a petition wherein the petitioner prayed violation of fundamental rights of a large number of people without specifying his personal grievance or injury suffered by him. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is applicable to the case under scrutiny, with all force and completely ousts invocation of a representative petition. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case, worth consideration by this Court because a transparent formula/criteria for selection of the participants in the exhibition was adopted, where under the three renowned personalities were nominated to provide their respective lists of artists, out of which seven who figured in each list were to be picked up. The artists complained to have been excluded were not named in any of the three lists, hence, their exclusion cannot be daubed as discriminatory, even if their status as asserted by the petitioner, be accepted.
7. For the reasons noted above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner could not demonstrate violation by the respondents of any law, any provision of the Constitution or his any vested right thus, this petition in pro bono publico.
' Without showing any personal inquiry, is not competent hence, the same having no merit in it, is dismissed with no order as to costs.