' The appellant runs a Filling Station with the name and style of "Mango Garden Filling Station", the business activity involves the sale of fuel and other related services of a Multinational Oil Company "Total Parco". Filling Station is situated at 14 K.M. Multan Road, Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore, at a strip which connects Canal Road to Motorway through Chowk Niaz Beg and has its commercial value.
' The plan for construction of flyover to link the motorway with Canal Road at Multan Road Niaz Beg Raiwind. Road junction, was assailed in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on various grounds namely; that plan for impugned construction of flyover was chalked out without associating affectees; that proposed plan suffers from technical defects; that proposed construction was never part of main Motorway project and impugned extension is extravagant, and more than to meet requirement of traffic; that proposed construction is violative of section 12 of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997; that proposed project is aimed at to benefit a certain class; that existing design of Highway is sufficient enough to take the flow of traffic; that proposed plan includes 12 to 8 feet concrete wall, right in front of the appellant's project and other business concerns including restaurants and show rooms, run by multinational companies and that the impugned act of respondents is mala fide. The petition was dismissed by learned Judge in Chamber through impugned order dated 2-5-2006, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Judge in Chamber, has failed to comprehend the controversy in hand so much so the appellant voiced his grievance in his petition against the construction of flyover and not against the construction of the ring road. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to decide the matter regarding construction of Ring Road, which was never an issue before him. Learned counsel went on to argue that designs of flyover are defective and in the process of construction, numerous trees standing on road side have been axed while many more shall be cut down further, to give effect to proposed constructions. Learned counsel referred to a settlement, arrived at between N.H.A. And Toyota Ravi Motor, whereby N.H.A assured not to widen the road so as the statedly encroach upon the property of later. It was submitted that respondents are estopped to raise that construction, which has the affect of stepping over the premises of the appellant or owners of other business concerns of the locality. It was lastly contended that the impugned construction will adversely affect the fundamental rights of the appellant as it would result into dislocating the business of the appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on the record.
5. The appellant's contention that learned Judge in Chamber, has not decided the issue which was raised in the petition, has no force. It is reflected from the order impugned before us that the prayer made in the writ petition was reproduced and thereafter it was observed that it is the sole domain of Traffic Engineering Authority to judge the sort of roads to be built whether it should be raised as expresswa y or it should be built as underpass. Learned Judge in Chamber observed further that construction of road and related matters are policy matters and relevant authorities cannot be called upon to prepare policies in certain terms or to change that to benefit an individual. Use of words like express way. Significantly relate to construction challenged in writ petition.
5A We have examined the case of the appellant, in view of the above observation and found that sole object of filing the petition is to seek protection of individual benefit, at the altar of public interest at large. Traffic hazards at Thokar Niaz Beg, are commonly known to every one. Ever increasing traffic in Lahore is threatening and needs immediate remedial steps, resolution on the basis of long term planning. Traffic Engineering Authority is the best judge to chalk' out adequate plans to meet traffic problems/challenges. The appellant has failed to satisfy us that the impugned construction is not beneficial to larger interest of community as a whole.
5B The appellant has also challenged the construction plan on plea that structural designs are defective. The appellant has not highlighted the defects in his petition, so much so, that proposed plan* and relevant drawings have not been placed on the record. Learned counsel while addressing arguments in this respect; showed his ignorance about the relevant details of the defect in structural designs. It will not be justified rather unsafe to dilate upon the so-called defects, without having relevant material on the record. Construction plan chalked out by the concerned authorities, cannot be set at naught, merely on the basis of bald allegation. Suppression of relevant material, disentitles the appellant to a relief. In the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, the Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot pass such direction which suits to the business of an individual or a few individuals. Larger interest of the society has precedence over individual gains and benefits.
6. For the foregoing, this appeal merits dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.