AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration against Respondents No, 2, 3 and 5 to 8 that a fine imposed upon him in the amount of Rs, 400/- by Respondent No, 5 is illegal and in violation of the Civil Aviation Authority Rules, 1994.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that on 19th-20th April, 2017 he alongwith his family reached Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore to see off some of his family members. The Petitioner parked his car in front of the departure gate. When he returned the spot he found that the car was no longer parked there. He was informed that it had been lifted and was placed in the parking lot.
The Petitioner went on searching his car in the parking lot and during this time he was harassed by Respondents No, 5 to 8. After a considerable period of time and after paying a fine of Rs, 400/- his car was released.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that Respondents cannot levy any fine nor they have the authority to receive any fine. Learned counsel states that even though the fine of Rs, 400/- is for the public exchequer but the Respondents are acting illegally and without any authorization under the law. Learned counsel further argued that imposing of fine is a punishment and without taking due process no punishment can be given.
4. On behalf of Respondents No, 5 to 8, it is stated that the car was parked in no parking zone, and was lifted by Airport Security. Moreover the license agreement dated 22.09.2016 in favour of the Respondents entitles them to check wrong parking as per clause 33(9). Learned counsel further argued that the Petitioner is merely harboring a personal grudge, which cannot be settled down through a Constitutional petition. In this regard, he placed reliance on "Mian Shabir Asmail v. Chief Minister of Punjab and others" (PLD 2017 Lahore 597).
5. On behalf of Respondents No, 2 and 3 it is argued that the car was parked in no parking zone and in terms of the Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1960 ("Ordinance") and the Rules the contractor can take necessary action if a car is parked in a wrong area. Learned counsel relied upon Rule 96(3) of the Civil Aviation Rules, 1994 ("Rules"), which provides as under:--- "No person shall park any motor or other vehicle at an aerodrome other than as authorized by the ,Manager."
Learned counsel further argued that Rule 333 of the Rules provides for penalty for contravention of the Rules, which reads as under:-- "(1) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these rules is guilty of an offence."
Learned counsel argued that in terms of the Rules the Respondents have rightly imposed the penalty on the Petitioner.
6. On behalf of Federation of Pakistan, it is argued that in terms of the Ordinance read with the Rules the Civil Aviation Authority and its contractor can take necessary action if a motor vehicle is parked in an aerodrome. Therefore, parking within the aerodrome area is prohibited and if a car is parked in a no parking area, the same was rightly removed by the Respondents.
7. From the record it appears that the entire grievance of the Petitioner is against a fine of Rs, 400/- which was issued to him for wrongful parking. Admittedly, Rs, 400/- has been paid but the Petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which his car was lifted from the no parking area and placed in the parking area. He is further aggrieved by the conduct of the Respondents and the delay that took place in receiving the car. In the first instance, it is noted that a personal grudge cannot be agitated in a Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the Respondents has informed the Court that not only did the Petitioner try to have an F.I.R. lodged but even filed a petition under Sections 22-A and 22B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") against which a writ petition had been filed. It appears that the Petitioner has taken to heart that his car was removed and that a fine was imposed upon him. In terms of the judgment cited at PLD 2017 Lahore 597 (supra) public interest litigation is in the interest of public-at-large and for the benefit of the "public-at-large. It must be bona fide and must promote public interest. In this case it appears that the Petitioner is perpetrating his own personal grudge and there is no public interest involved. The fine was paid and the car was released, however the Petitioner wants to settle some score with the Respondents.
Even otherwise since the car was parked in a no parking zone it goes without saying that it is liable to be lifted and a fine may be imposed. The Respondents have acted as per law and in terms of the agreement.
8. Under the circumstances, no case for interference by this Court is made out. Petition stands dismissed.