1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners in this case, who carry on the business as Goods Forwarding Agents, at Lahore, had filed a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the Lahore High Court to challenge the validity of certain actions taken by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, in the purported exercise of powers under section 11 of the West Pakistan Bus Stand and Traffic Control (Lahore) Ordinance, 1963, whereby some trucks of the petitioner with the goods in them had been impounded and cases registered against them under , sections 3 and 11 of the above-mentioned Ordinance and a Notification said to have been issued on the 21st May 1970, by the Commissioner of Lahore.
2. At the hearing of the Writ Petition in the High Court the Additional Advocate-General of the Province appeared along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic) and the latter stated that the orders, if any, for impounding the trucks will be recalled and the trucks and goods so impounded will be returned to the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate-General also gave an undertaking to the effect that no action will be taken either by the Government or the Police beyond the scope of the provisions of law. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition was disposed of after recording the statement of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the undertaking of the Additional Advocate-General.
3. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf that the High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction that was vested in it of pronouncing upon the validity of the Notification itself under which the petitioners are being constantly harassed. It appears that on a previous occasion too when they challenged the action of the Police and the Transport Authorities in the purported exercise of these powers the authorities appeared in the High Court and assured the Court that there was no intention to proceed against the petitioners in any arbitrary manner but only in accordance with law. It is urged that it was incumbent, in the circumstances, upon the High Court to declare whether the Notification was valid or not so that the petitioners could be certain of their position.
4. The High Court's function under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 is not to pronounce upon the validity of laws or Notifications, etc., as merely an academic exercise but it is only where a person is aggrieved, that is to say, adversely affected by such a law that he may invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court and then the High Court would in a concrete case deal with the legal position. In the present case when the orders and actions of the authorities which were sought to be challenged were recalled and an assurance given that the goods or trucks impounded would be released forthwith. There was nothing left to be done by the High Court. The relief that the petitioners sought in the High Court had been received by them and they had in addition also the undertaking of the Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that the petitioners would not be proceeded against save in accordance with law. There was no question left, therefore, on which the High Court could have adjudicated.
5. There is no substance in the contention that even after this the High Court should still have gone on to pronounce upon the validity of the notification or the Ordinance under which the action was sought to be taken. The petitioners had no further grievance left which gave them a right to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98. This petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, in our opinion, mis--conceived, for, the petitioners have got all the relief they wanted in the High Court. We have no reason to doubt that the under--taking given by the D. S. P. And the learned Additional Advocate --General will be honoured. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.