' ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.--- The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.A-293, measuring 253.33 sq. Yds., situated at Block-2, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, K.D.A. Scheme No.24, Karachi, by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 10-11- 2005. The petitioner is a private limited company and running an educational institute under the name and style "Youth Enrichment Network (Pvt.) Limited.", on the said plot. Pursuant to the building plan having been approved by Architect Control of the then Karachi Development Authority, vide letter dated 28-1-1974, the construction of the said property i.e. Ground plus one upper floor was completed by the end of December, 1975. Subsequently, the subject property was surveyed by the Excise and Taxation Department in the year, 1976. Later, a fresh building plan was also approved for ground plus one floor by Karachi Building Control Authority, vide approval letter dated 8-4-2006.
Subsequently, respondent No.1, K. B.C. A., served a notice dated 16-4-2007 upon petitioner, with regard to the additions/alterations as well as misuse of the said residential premises as commercial by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said notice through his counsel on 19-4- 2007, thereby denying the allegations contained in the impugned notice dated 16-4-2007, and also raising the ground that several premises/properties in the same locality had been converted from residential to commercial units and for amenities purposes. The list of such properties was submitted by petitioner. It was stated by petitioner that the proposed action by respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction, besides being discriminatory and based on mala fides.
2. The petitioner prayed for the relief as under:-- "(a) Declare that the acts and deeds of the respondents in respect of issuing the impugned notice dated 16-4-2007 directing the petitioners to vacate and remove the said un-authorized structure within 24 hours, are illegal, without lawful authority/without jurisdiction, mala fide and/or of no legal effect.
(b) Declare that the impugned Notice issued by the respondent is discriminatory by using excess power which are even otherwise not vested in the said respondents.
(c) Issue a prohibitory writ restraining the respondent, their servants, agents, employees, demolition squad from demolition/removal of the existing structure/construction and/or sealing the premises situated on Plot No.A-293, Block-2, measuring 253.33 sq. Yds., Gulshan-e-Iqbal, K.D.A.
Scheme No.24, Karachi, and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in smooth running the Educational Institute in the subject property.
(d) Issue writ of enforcement of the fundamental right of the petitioners as guaranteed under Articles 2-A, 4, 18, 123, 24, 25 and 227 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
(e) Award mandatory compensation/costs of the proceedings.
(f) Grant any other/better relief(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate under the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent No.1, K.B.C.A. Had acted malafidely, by way of issuing the impugned notice dated 16-4-2007, thereby directing the petitioner to stop further unauthorized construction work on the said plot forthwith, vacate and remove the said un- authorized structure within 24 hours and also explain as to why he should not be prosecuted for violation of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979-1982 and the Regulations framed thereunder.
The alleged violation did not fall within the ambit and scope of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979-1982. It was contended that several other properties in the same locality where the subject property is situated, have been converted from residential to commercial unit as well as for amenities purposes viz. Educational institutions clinics etc. As such the action proposed to be taken by respondent No.1 against petitioner, is discriminatory and based on mala fides. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is running a private educational institute, which cannot be termed as commercial.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, K.B.C.A., submitted that the proposed building plan was approved for the building structure to be used for residential purpose. However, the petitioner had violated the prevalent rules by misusing the said premises by converting the same from residential to commercial and also by way of making unauthorized additions/alterations in the same premises.
5. The counter affidavit as well as report on behalf of respondent No.1, K.B.C.A, were duly filed, wherein it was clearly stated that according to the approved building plan, the subject property was to be used for residential purpose, but the petitioner had misused the same property by converting it into commercial. Moreover, the petitioner had made unauthorized additions/alterations in the building structure.
6. We heard the learned counsel for respective parties, and also perused the relevant record.
Admittedly, the building plan was approved for its use for residential purpose. The approved building plan was issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings, K.B.C.A., vide letter dated 18-4-2006, wherein the category of plot is mentioned as "residential", in the same building plan certain conditions have been laid down, inclusive of the conditions that the premises shall not be used for the purpose other than the use approved by the authority, and according to terms and conditions of allotment, and that no further construction shall be allowed without prior permission from this Authority. Even, according to the report of Excise and Taxation Officer dated 9-10-1997, the designation of property is shown as "residential". According to report submitted by respondent No.1, K.B.C.A., a complaint was received in April, 2007 regarding the above violations, where after the K.B.C.A. Inspected the site, and it was observed that the petitioner had carried out certain additions/alterations, without any prior approval, and had also misused the residential plot by converting the same into commercial without prior approval. Consequently, the notice dated 16-4- 2007 was issued to the petitioner.
7. It is significant to note that the petitioner has tried to defend itself, by way of submitting the list of other plots/premises in the vicinity of the subject property, which were converted from residential into commercial units. In other words, the petitioner has admitted the same conversion from residential to commercial, but his only plea appears to be to the effect that since other persons have violated the rules, as such he, too, may be allowed to carry on such violation of rules. Such reasoning cannot appeal to any prudent mind, and will not provide any justification to the petitioner to commit illegal acts. Moreover, the petitioner raised the plea that the educational institute being an amenity plot, could not be termed as a "commercial unit", however, learned counsel for petitioner failed to substantiate his above plea by citing any specific provisions of law.
Admittedly, the petitioner also made additions/alterations in the building structure, without the prior approval of competent authority. In the given circumstances, the K.B.C.A did not commit any illegality, by issuing the impugned notice dated 16-4-2007 to the petitioner.
8. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we do not find any merits in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with the listed applications.