ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J. - The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this-Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking declaration to the effect that the posting of Mubarik Ali Chaudhry, Zonal Chief Manager, M/s. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., Faisalabad/respondent No. 6 is illegal, void, ultra vires and also to restrain him from exercising the powers as such.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 6 is going to be superannuated on 30.4.2013 and being a relative of Ch. Sultan Ali, Chairman Board of Directors, M/s. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd./respondent No. 3 has been posted violative to Circular No. HRD/29/2008, dated 4.4.2008 issued by the Human Resources Division Policy and Regulations Department, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., Islamabad manifesting that no officer and above shall be posted as MCO or Manager/Chief Manager of the Branch one year before the date of proceeding on mandatory Leave Preparatory to Retirement; that respondent No. 6 is indulged in corrupt practices in his domain; that no bank employee can dare to point out illegalities and corrupt practices of respondent No. 6 due to his influence.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Lahore. In the contents of this writ petition he has failed to mention any personal grievance qua the alleged posting or any act of respondent No. 6. When confronted with the proposition with regard to his grievance if any petitioner in attendance submits that he has invoked in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as pro bono publico in public interest.
In support of his plea he has taken reliance upon the case of Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 482).
5. At the outset it may be expedient to re-produce an extract from the above-cited case which reads as below:- "No doubt with the development of new concept of public interest litigation in the recent years, a person can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts as pro bono publico but while exercising this jurisdiction, he has to show that he is litigating, firstly, in the public interest and, secondly, for the public good or for the welfare of the general public. The word 'pro bono publico' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary generally means 'for the public good' or 'for welfare of the whole' being or involving uncompensated legal services performed especially for the public good. 'Public interest' in the Black's Law Dictionary, has been defined as the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection.
Something in which the public as a whole has a stake; esp. An interest that justifies governmental regulation. It thus signifies that in case of public interest litigation, one can agitate the relief on his own behalf and also on behalf of the general public against various public functionaries, where they have failed to perform their duties relating to the welfare of public at large which they are bound to provide under the relevant laws. Viewing the bona fide of petitioner in the above context, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to show that he was aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and can agitate his grievance as 'pro bono publico'.
6. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'public interest litigation' as the legal action initiated in a Court of Law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in Which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest of some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
There is no cavil to the proposition that concept of public interest litigation provides opportunity to all the citizens to have inviolable access to justice for the protection and enforcement of their fundamental Human rights of life and liberty etc.
7. In the leading public interest litigation case titled Muhammad Bin Ismail v. Tan Sri Haji Othman Satt (1982-2 MLJ 133) Justice Wan Yahya (Malaysia) laid the dictum as under:- "If they (public authorities) transgress any law or Constitutional directives, then any public-spirited citizen, even if he has no greater interest than a person having regard for the due observation of the Law, may move the Courts and the Courts may grant him the appropriate legal remedy in its discretion."
8. In the constitutionally governed States, judiciary is provided pivotal role of protection and enforcement of the fundamental human, Constitutional and statutory rights. In the cases of infringement of fundamental rights even involving a question of public importance superior Courts in Pakistan have been earnestly guarding the long standing concept of 'other adequate remedy provided by law' and 'aggrieved person' while assuming extraordinary jurisdiction to issue Writs and Orders under Articles 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) dealing with the issue of 'locus standi' maintained that where there are violations of fundamental rights of a class or a group of persons who are unable to seek redressal of their grievance from the Court, then the traditional rule of locus standi can be dispensed with, and the procedure available in public interest litigation can be made use of, if it is brought to the notice of the Court by a person acting bona fide. Reliance was also made upon the earlier dictum of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Miss Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139) wherein it was laid down that the law cannot standstill nor can the Judges become mere slaves of the precedents and that the rule of 'stare decisis' does not apply with the same strictness in criminal, fiscal and Constitutional matters where the liberty of the subject is involved or some other grave injustice is likely to occur by strict adherence to the rule.
9. Object of the public interest litigation is to provide remedy to the wrongs done to the poor, unprivileged people and weaker segments of the society lacking power or resources to have an access to justice. The principles of 'locus standi' or 'aggrieved person' having been liberally interpreted by the Courts in the recent past provide a right to a person having bona fide interest to maintain a petition in the larger public interest subject to fulfilling other requirements under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
10. In the light of above legal position, it is important to note that the petitioner in this case is neither an employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. Nor he has furnished particulars of alleged corrupt practices of respondent No. 6 to constitute a bona fide sufficient grievance in his favour to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Rule of pleadings and fair play require that charge of mal-practice should not be entertained unless precise information was supplied to the person against it was levelled in order to provide him a fair opportunity of reply and hearing. In the absence of necessary details of alleged corrupt practices law would protect dignity of every person by not allowing to plead such plea against any person in a casual manner.
11. In view of all above petitioner has not been able to show himself as an 'aggrieved person' in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to agitate any bona fide grievance as pm born publico therefore he has no case at all to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through this writ petition.
12. For the above reasons this Constitutional petition being not maintainable and having no merit is dismissed in limine.