' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner prays for issuance of direction to respondents to the effect that they be restrained from establishing 'Utility Mega Store' at Centre Point Plaza Kohinoor Chowk Faisalabad. Learned counsel has attempted to set up a case that already seven utility stores are operational in town and instead of establishing a new Utility Mega Store Center Point at proposed site, respondents be directed to consider the feasibility of setting up 14 more utility stores at different locations in the city suggested by the petitioner.
2. Heard. Record perused. On the question of maintainability of this petition, learned counsel is unable to point out as to which fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed or abridged.
It is well established that equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to perpetuate injustice against the welfare and interest of public at large. Furthermore, the prayer made in this petition, if allowed, would result in curtailing economic growth, forestalling commercial/industrial activities and above all generating unemployment, as such cannot be issued by this Court.
3. Utility Stores Corporation is a statutory body with the prime objective of supply of essential commodities including edibles at subsidized prices to general public at relatively more accessible locations under one roof. Therefore, opening up of a Mega Store would facilitate the consumer, and the fears apprehended by the petitioner are not only conjectural, but also the learned counsel has miserably failed to provide any legal basis for the same. Moreover, it is the exclusive administrative domain of respondents to consider the probability of establishing store(s) at appropriate locations taking into consideration, inter alia, the principle of supply and demand. The direction sought for amounts to dictating the respondents for opening of stores at places according to the whims of the petitioner. Contents of this petition fail to indicate as to how the petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution, hence, for all intents and purposes it tends to lack bona fides, locus standi and cause of action.
4. While dealing with the question of 'bona fides' especially, in the case of a person approaching the Court in the name of 'public interest litigation' the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2004 SC 208) held as under:- "public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration.
The courts must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
5. Relying on the said case, the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Dr.Akhtar Hasan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 SCM R 455 has observed that the court has to guard against frivolous petitions as it is a matter of common observation that in the garb of public interest litigation matters are brought before the court which are neither of public importance nor relatable to enforcement of a fundamental right or public duty.
6. The prayer in absence of bona fides and devoid of locus standi appears speculative and presumptive and must be deprecated. Consequently, the captioned petition being misconceived, against public interest and public welfare fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.