C.M. Nos.3, 5, 1182, 1225, 1231 and 1241 of 2013.
' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.-Through this single order I intend to dispose of aforementioned six applications filed in the instant writ petition under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Wherein the applicants pray for their impleadment as respondents to the instant petition on account of being necessary and proper party to the proceedings.
2. The case of the applicants is that the petitioner has filed the instant petition wherein it has impugned the import of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from India through Wahga Border under Rule 20 of the Import Policy Order, 2009. The applicants have argued their case to be made party on the following grounds:--
(i) The petitioner has prayed that the respondent No,1 be restrained from allowing import of CO2 from India through Wahga Border.
' The applicants argued that they are all users of CO2 either in as direct importers or purchasers or as consumers. Therefore, it is necessary for them to be made party as their right with respect to the permits giver for import could be adjudicated upon in this petition.
(ii)The petitioner has prayed that quality of CO2 imported from India through Wagha Border, which is of substandard quality and affect the public health, should be destroyed in the larger interest of justice of the citizens of Pakistan."
' The applicants argued that they have imported CO2, from India through Wahga Border. Hence if this Court was to pass any order with respect to this prayer, the rights of the applicants would be seriously prejudiced and they should be heard in order to ensure that the relevant information is placed before this Court:-- (iii)The petitioner has arrayed respondent No 6. As a party. The respondent No,6 is a user and importer of CO2 in the same manner as the applicants and that there is no justification for arraying it as a party and leaving out the applicants.
' Therefore, they pray that they may be made as party to the instant petition. Reliance has been placed on a judgment dated 25-8-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A No,857 of 2007 (2014 SCMR 531) in which it has been held that in the cases of public interest litigation, the Court should take more liberal stance with respect to the impleadment of the parties and which should hear all such parties, who are likely to be affected by any judgment in such proceedings.
3. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners have relevant and necessary information to place before this Court to explain the circumstances in which Rule 20 of the Import Policy Order, 2009 has been invoked And to explain the circumstances in which they have been given permission. They argued that the petitioner has not placed all the relevant information before this Court and therefore, in the very least, they are proper and necessary parties to this petition. Hence they should be arrayed as respondents in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the applicants are not necessary party to this petition. He argued that the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Do not suggest that any person, who in any manner is connected with the judgment, should join the proceedings. A remote issue with the parties would not make them necessary or proper party in this petition in terms of Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. He has raised specific. Objection with respect to the applications filed and the documents appended with them. He argued that it is not possible to implead every one, who has been conferred an advantage in a general way, which benefit may be lost, if that provision of law is struck down or its usage is restricted in any way. He argued that the Court would not be able to control the amount of persons, who would be affected and want to be arrayed in a petition. He has placed reliance on the cases titled "Band Rai v. Abid' Esbhani" (2010. YLR 1666), "Syed Khurram Shah v. Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and 4 others" (PLD 2009 Lahore 140), "Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani v. Punjab Province and others" (1982 CLC 590) and "Dr. Saleem Javed and others v. Mst.
Fauzia Nasim and others" (2003 SCMR 965). He argued that the dispute can be decided in the absence of the applicants as they are not the necessary party.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The basic issue in this petition is the import of CO2 from India through Wahga Border. The petitioner has raised certain concern with respect to storage' facilities, testing laboratory and transportation facilities at the Wahga Border. He has also raised an objection with respect to the quality of CO2 that is being imported, voicing concern with respect to the health and lives of citizens of Pakistan. This is a matter of public importance and in the judgment dated 25-8-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A No,857 of 2007 (2014 SCMR 531) it has been held that in the cdses involving issues of public interest litigation more liberal stance is needed to be taken by the Courts for impleadment of parties to such litigation, to enable it to hear all the parties concerned, who are likely to be affected by .Any judgment in such proceedings. The Hon'ble apex Court has also held that when matters are of pubic importance then it is not only proper but necessary to make a person party whose interest is at stake in the petition and who can render proper assistance to the Court about the technical aspects of the issue involved.
7. In view of the above, these applications are accepted and applicants are allowed to join the proceedings in the titled writ petition as respondents Nos.7 to 12.
8. Let amended memo of the parties be filed and the newly arrayed respondents are directed to file their report and parawise comments on or before the next date of hearing.
9. Re-fix on 12-6-2013.