SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the captioned Constitution petition, petitioner Engineer Khwaja Muhammad Asghar has invoked the constitutional jurisdictibn of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan and agitated restoration of licenses of respondents Nos.3 to 8 by respondent No.1.
2. The relevant facts narrated in instant petition ,are that petitioner is a qualified Civil Engineer, registered member of Pakistan Engineering Council vide registration No.Civi1/4654 and registered Engineer in the Cantonment Board Faisal (CBF), SBCA. Petitioner was holding a Consultant Engineering License No.PEC/ Consult/ 1009, dated 27.05.2002 valid up to 31.12.2014, and Structural Engineering License bearing No.SE-06-240 issued by respondent No.1, which expired in the year 2013.
3. It is further averred that respondent No.2 is an apex authority in respect of engineering works and services in Pakistan by virtue of PEC-1976, and it grants license to act as Consulting Engineer and also promulgates regulations and by-laws to regulate profession of Consulting Engineers. It is also stated that respondent No.1 vide its prescribed form ZP-2 obtains an undertaking from its approved professionals, signing form for proposed construction for its supervision and stability certificate for any completed work. The respondent No.1 is a controlling authority for 18 Towns of the Metropolitan city of Karachi by virtue of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulation-2002 (KBTPR2002), and its Chapter 4 (Licensing and Registration of Professional), deals with the qualifications, experiences and other requirements for issuance and cancellation of license.
4. Petitioner vehemently contended that respondents Nos.3 to 8 had committed violations of certain rules while they were supervising the unauthorized work against the approved plan. He further submitted that respondent No.1 initiated legal action against the respondents Nos.3 to 8 and suspended/cancelled their respective licenses. Petitioner further contended that respondent No.1 in exercise of its official powers has been restoring the cancelled licenses of numerous professionals day by day and misusing the authority conferred upon it vide notification dated 14.11.2007, which is manifestly against the norms of justice such as licenses of respondents Nos.3 to 8 have been gradually restored without showing any sufficient cause, which is the pre-requisite condition under addendum No.4-11.4, therefore, restoration orders issued in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 are liable to be withdrawn.
5. We have heard the petitioner at length and perused the material placed on record minutely, which emanate that petitioner is a registered Civil Engineer, while respondent No.1 is the competent authority to deal and supervise the affairs of Engineers and has been exercising its official authority under Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations-2002. It is worthwhile to mention that respondent No.1 vide notification No. DBCA/DC (Admin-P.1)/2007/1356, dated 14.11.2007, amended Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, and added clause No.4-11.4, which provides that the Chief Controller of the Building /IIG Sindh Building Control Authority may recall, alter or amend his order of cancellation or suspension on sufficient cause shown by licensee Engineer.
Indeed, in present petition, respondents Nos.3 to 8, are registered Engineers with respondent No.1 and working under its control. Allegedly, respondents Nos.3 to 8, while constructing their respective projects/buildings had committed violations, and were not raising subject constructions in accordance with the approved plans, designs and drawings without obtaining prior approval or required permission from the relevant department or competent authority regarding their unauthorized construction work at various locations. Allegedly, on the complaints of violations committed by respondents Nos.3 to 8 regarding raising constructions, respondent No.1 being the exclusive controlling and competent authority suspended/cancelled their licenses on different dates. It is also important to mention that amendment notification dated 14.11.2007, was subsequently published in gazette notification, whereby the respondent No.1 was empowered to streamline the affairs of the registered Engineers and since then respondent No.1 has been exercising such authority independently and uninterruptedly.
6. At this juncture, we would like to refer the relevant case law. In case of Muhammad Aslam Khan v.
Government of Punjab and 2 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 120), it was observed that person aggrieved is one against whom a decision has been pronounced which decision has wrongfully refused him something which he had a right to demand. In case of Muhammad Botta and 77 others v. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division and 2 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 580), it was observed that it is only an aggrieved person who can maintain a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution 1962, and an aggrieved person is one who discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise. All orders of executive officers are subject to challenge by those affected by orders, and a person would be 'affected' even if he loses some benefit or advantage which he would have gained if the order was in accordance with law. In case of Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafuz Dastoor v.
Govt of Pakistan (1993 PCr.L.J 744), it was observed as follows:- "The first question is that of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition. This petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution which provides inter alia that on an application of any aggrieved party the High Court may make an order or the declaration as provided in clauses
(a) (i) and (ii) of sub-Article (1) thereof. A petitioner to be an "aggrieved party" has to establish a direct or indirect injury to himself and a substantial and not a mere academic interest in the subject matter. The right considered sufficient for maintaining a proceeding of this nature is not necessarily a right in the strict justice sense but is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise."
7. In the light of the above case law, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to show his locus standi and establish that his legal right, directly or indirectly, was infringed or invaded by the restoration of licenses of respondents Nos.3 to 8 by respondent No.1, while exercising its legal authority under clause 4-11.4 of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, A 2002, but no such legal substance has been placed by petitioner to strengthen the allegations emphasized in instant petition. Consequently, we have no hesitation to conclude that petitioner has failed to establish any right to be heard in instant petition. There is no cavil that orders for restoration of licenses of the respondents Nos.3 to 8 were passed by the respondent No.1 being the competent authority conferred with exclusive and ample powers to grant, suspend and restore the licenses to Engineers having requisite qualifications and maintaining other requirements. It is well settled that if petitioner fails to disclose that he has any personal interest in the performance of the legal duty by the Government functionary which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage. The baseless apprehensions of an individual provide no cause of action or ground for filing of Constitution petition. Resultantly, we are clear in our mind that petitioner has failed to point out that he is directly or indirectly effected by the notification dated 14.11.2007, whereby the respondent No.1 amended Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulation, 2002, and added clause 4-11.4 regarding the powers of DG Sindh Building Control Authority. Consequently, petitioner has failed to show his locus standi i.e. Right to be heard or any right of appearance in this Court by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, instant petition being devoid of any legal substance stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- which should be deposited by the petitioner with the Nazir of this Court within 07 days hereof.
To come up for compliance on 04.5.2015.