1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- "In the circumstances it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the appellate order passed by the District Officer Cooperative CDGK Karachi - (respondent No,5) dated 17-10-2003 in respect of Plot No,II/P/A-5 measuring 240 Square yards in Gulshan-e-Askar, Landhi, Karachi and order dated 17-10-2003 passed by the Minister Cooperation Government of Sindh i,e, respondent No,6 all subsequent orders approving the same and so also the execution certificate issued by the respondent No,5 under section 59(1)(a) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is without lawful authority and jurisdiction and mala fide, is ab initio void and that the same is inexecutable the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Malir Karachi and that the execution proceedings in the shape of Civil Execution No, 43/04 are unlawful and accordingly set aside and strike down the same."
2. ' Mr. Junaid Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No,5, the District Officer, Cooperative Societies CDGK was not competent authority before whom appeal under sections 56 and 59(1)(a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 lies and had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 17-10-2003 and the subsequent order of the respondent No,6 so also the certificate of execution issued by respondent No,5 and the Execution Application No,43 of 2004 pending in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Malir Karachi are also illegal.
3. ' Mr. Karamatullah, counsel for respondent No, 1 contended that after order dated 17-; 0-2003 was passed, petitioner has sold the plot in question to one Ali Asghar and petitioner has no subsisting interest in the plot and petition is not maintainable. He has further contended that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 25-10-2003 passed by respondent No,6 by which his Revision Application was dismissed and that the present petition has been filed on 1-4-2008, when the respondent No,1 had obtained order of possession of the property from the executing Court.
4. ' We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have gone through the record.
5. ' It seems that the arbitration case was initially decided in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged by respondent No,1 by filing appeal before the respondent No,5. The respondent No,5 decided the said appeal vide order dated 17-10-2003 in favour of the respondent No,1 and set aside the award. The petitioner through revision application challenged the said order of respondent No,5 with the respondent No,6. The Revision Application of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No,6 vide order dated 25-10-2003, against which petitioner seems to have not filed any proceeding. The petitioner has even not attached with the petition copy of order, dated 25-10-2003, which copy has been filed by the respondents Nos.7 and 8 with their application C.M.A. No, 1352 of 2009. The operative part of the order, dated 25-10-2003 is as follows:-- "From the record it appeared that during the interim administratership the Secretary of the Society Fazlur Rehman manipulated these transactions and tried to deprive Mst. Shamim of her rights over the plot which was allotted to her in 1985. Since the Respondent No,1 is widow of an army official and is rightful allottee the Society was justified in restoring her allotment on acceptance of development charges of Rs.8000. Had the appellant been in need of a plot for residential purpose, he would have retained it. But instead he sold it to Nazar Gul and the latter sold it to Gul Rehman.
6. This only goes to prove that appellant has no case at all as he grabbed the land in collusion with the officials of the society just to make quick money. The appeal is thus rejected and the order of the Registrar dated 17-10-2003 is upheld."
7. ' This order of respondent No,6 was not challenged by the petitioner in any forum. The present Constitutional Petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the order of respondent No,5 is without jurisdiction and so also the subsequent proceedings thereon.
8. ' We would not go into the question of legality or otherwise of the order of the respondent No,5 for that from the record it appears that the petitioner has sold the plot to Nazar Gul who in turn has sold it to Gul Rehman. This fact is not disputed in the petition nor was it disputed by the petitioner's counsel during the hearing of this petition. For maintaining a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, a person has to be an aggrieved person and he must establish a direct or indirect injury to himself and substantial interest in the subject-matter of proceedings. Reference is made to the cases of Jan Muhammad and others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. And A others (1993 CLC 1067) and M. Ghulam Nabi Awan, Advocate v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (2003 M LD 90). The petitioner does not appear to have subsisting interest in the plot in question and that he is not an aggrieved person and cannot maintain petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, had the petitioner been aggrieved, he would have challenged the order dated 25-10- 2003 immediately which the petitioner did not do rather he waited until 1-4-2008 when this Constitutional Petition was filed. This non-action on the part of the petitioner also reflects that he has no interest in the plot and petitioner is unable to explain as to what right and interest of his has been impaired on account of which the Constitutional Petition has been filed by him.
9. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, through a short order dated 6-5-2010, we have dismissed this petition. Above are the reasons for the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.