1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The petitioners by way of filing of this petition have challenged the Notification No, IV(I)/73/87, dated 25th January, 1973 issued by the respondent-No,3 by which he has taken over and assumed the administrative control, management and maintenance of R.B.
2. Chandi Ram Trust and Maternity Home and the attached urban and agricultural lands shown and described in the schedule.
3. ' In short the facts of this petition are that the petitioners are Nazim and Naib Nazim of Taluka Municipal Council Rohri. One Rai Bahadur Chandi Ram had given donation of Rs,1,27,999-1502 paisas to the then Collect& of Sukkur for Public Welfare and from the said donation one Hospital/Maternity Home in the name of R.B. Chandi Ram was constructed at CS No,2225 at Massan Road Rohri (thereinafter referred to as said Hospital) and in this regard additional urban and agricultural land was purchased for the said purpose which land is a part and parcel of the said Hospital and the same is in existence with all its assets. For the administration of the said Hospital a committee was formed and thereafter the said committee decided to transfer the control and management of the said Hospital to the then Municipal Committee Rohri. The then Municipal Committee after getting necessary sanction from the then Commissioner Khairpur had taken over the administration of the said Hospital along with its attached assets from the Committee.
4. ' The then Municipal Committee Rohri on 16-10-1974 enteredinto an agreement with the Evacuee Trust Property Board for the maintenance and development of the said Hospital. On the basis of said agreement respondent No,3 issued Notification,' dated 25th January, 1973 for taking over the possession, control and management of the property of the said Hospital from the then Municipal Committee Rohri. The petitioners claim that action of the respondents is illegal and unlawful and state that the original status of property of said Hospital is non-evacuee. The respondents have got no locus standi under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and only Ministry of Religious Affairs. Government of Pakistan are the authority to dispose of the said Hospital and its concerned assets and the respondents have no authority to take over the possession of the said Hospital and its attached assets.
5. ' Comments were filed on behalf of Respondent No,4 for self and on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3. In the comments it has been stated that the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board is competent to declare the status of a property to be evacuee. It has further been submitted that the property is admittedly an Evacuee Trust Property made by Rai Bahadur Chandi Ram in 1930-31. The Maternity Home was given on lease under the agreement, dated 16-10-1974 to the Municipal Committee through Local Government. It has been further stated that the property was notified as Evacuee Trust in the Gazette of Pakistan published on 25-1-1973 and the question of property can only be challenged under section 8(i) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management & Disposal) Act XIII of 1975.
6. ' The respondent No,5 has also filed his comments in which he has submitted that the Nazim Taluka Council Rohri vide his letter, dated 17-1-2002 addressed to the District Coordination Officer. Sukkur requested for handing over the possession of R.B. Chandi Ram Maternity Home to Taluka Municipal Administration. In reply the Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust Property has informed that the Trust has taken over the property vide Gazette Notification, dated 15-1-1973 and that 10 houses were built and the same were given on rent and on a portion some persons have illegal possession and the agricultural land was given on lease as a Trust property.
7. ' Mr. David Lawrance the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property is not an evacuee property as the same belongs to a private trust managed by a Committee and the Notification, dated 25-1-1973 is without lawful authority and ab initio void. The petitioners being the elected representatives are entitled to file the petition and to challenge the Notification which was issued without lawful authority.
8. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following reported cases.
(1) Queeta Hindu Punchiat v. Dilshad Akhter and others (1993 SCMR 21).
(2) Yummy Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Punjab and others (1999 CLC 1443).
(3) Ardeshir, Cowasjee and 11 others v. Sindh Province and others (2004 CLC 1353).
(4) Jehan Khan v. Province of Sindh (PLD 2003 Karachi 691).
9. ' Mr. Abdul Razak Bhutto the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that the petition is barred by principle of laches the petitioners have no locus standi to question the Notification in their personal capacity, and that the legal proceedings are barred under sections 8 and 16 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII) of 1975. The learned counsel relied upon the following reported cases:--
(1) F.P.T.R. v. Rana Hamid Khan etc. (1994 CLC 1807).
(2) Farooq Inayat v. Haji Abdul Sattar (PLD 1996 Kar. 429).
10. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before us.
11. ' From the perusal of record it appears that the Committee of Rai Bahadur Chandi Rain Maternity Home Rohri in meeting held on 20-8-1963 resolved to hand over the control of the hospital to the Municipal Committee who has taken over the control with the sanction of the Commissioner, Khairpur accorded on 16th February, 1965. Thereafter vide Notification, dated 25th January, 1973 the then Administrative. Evacuee Trust Property Southern Zone, in exercise of his powers conferred on him by Clause 10(1) of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Evacuee Trust Properties 1971 take over the control and Management of the Trust Maternity Home and the attached urban and agricultural land. The Assistant Administrator A Evacuee Trust Property thereafter entered into an agreement, dated 16-10-1974 with the Administrator Peoples Municipality Rohri and handed over the management and control of Maternity Home to the Peoples Municipality Rohri.
12. ' The Notification was issued on 25-1-1973 and was in the knowledge of the Municipality since its publication and-the Municipality has never challenged the same and agreed to continue with the management and control of the Maternity Home under an agreement,dated 16-10-1974 entered into between the Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust Property and the Municipality. By entering into the agreement the Municipality has acquiescence its right if any to challenge the said notification. The petitioners being successors in Office have also no right to challenge the notification after 25 years. The Trust was created by a Hindu and under Clause 10 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of the Evacuee Trust Properties 1971 the Secretary of the Board or an Administrator was authorized to take over the administrative control and management of the Evacuee Trust Properties and the said notification can be challenged by submitting an appeal to the Chairman within 30 days and the Central Government was also empowered to call for the record and proceedings and pass such order as it deems fit. In 1975 the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII) of 1975 was promulgated and under section 8 the powers were given to the Chairman of the Board to decide whether to evacuee property is attached to a charitable, religious or educational Trust and his decision shall be final and cannot be called in question in any Court of law. The Evacuee Trust Properties is defined in section 2(d) of the said Act as under:-- "(d) "Evacuee trust property" means the evacuee trust properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions or any other properties which form part of the Trust Pool Constituted under this Act."
13. ' Admittedly the Maternity Home and other attached properties belong to a Charitable Trust created from the donation of Rai Bahadur Seth Chandi Ram. The position is confirmed from the letter, dated 31-10-1992 addressed by Chief Municipal Officer Rohri to Deputy Commissioner Sukkur.
14. In view of the above provisions the Administrator has rightly assumed the jurisdiction and has rightly issued the notification. As far as the contention of Mr. Lawrance with regard to the limitation for void order is concerned, it is suffice to say that the notification issued was competently issued and cannot be said to be void and the judgment cited by him in this regard is not applicable. As far as the contention of Mr. Bhutto regarding the locus standi to file the petition is concerned the definition of aggrieved party has been enlarged by the various pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Courts and High Courts. The expression "aggrieved person" would not confine to a person having strict legal right, but would extend to any person having legitimate interest in performance of a public duty. The petitioners are B elected representatives and have every right to challenge the notification if issued by statutory body without lawful authority. The other contention of Mr. Bhutto is that the petition is hit by laches. The laches cannot be equated with limitation prescribed for doing any act under Limitation C Act. Simpliciter laches is pn ground to non-suiting a party if the equities are not against him constitutional petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of laches without examining the case on merits and if the party has a case on merits the laches will not come in his way except that the delay should not generate a belief or situation of abandonment of the right because, then vested right comes into operation and cannot be deviated from. The other contention of Mr. Bhutto is that the petition is not maintainable under sections 8 and 16 of the Act of 1975. It is suffice to say that right quaranteed by the Constitution cannot be taken away by the enactment made under the Constitution.
15. Before parting with he judgment. We deemed necessary to observe that the respondents Nos.2 to 4 by virtue of agreement, dated 16-10-1974, are required to give suitable annual grant to the Municipality Rohri for the maintenance and development of the hospital and it appears that the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have not fulfilled its obligation under the agreement. We therefore, direct the respondent No,2 to look into the matter and suitable grant may be allowed for the maintenance and development of the hospital from the current financial year.
16. ' In view of the above the petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.