MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J . - --Through instant petition, petitioner has challenged the development work being carried out by National Highway Authority ("NHA") at Indus Highway , Taunsa, Dera Ghazi Khan, allegedly in violation of the provisions of the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 ("NHA Act of 1991") and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), with the following prayer:- "In the light of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and the development works initiated by NHA under the slogan of "Post Flood National Highway Rehabilitation Project Package" (PNHRP) at the above mentioned site be declared as illegal, unlawful and in violation of the NHA Act, 1991.
It is further prayed that without formal approval / recommendation by the council and recommendations from the board of the design of bridge and road works at site on Mouza Dhumra Shumali, 6 Kilometer , near Dhodak Morr, Indus Highway , Taunsa, District D.G. Khan be declared unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under the Constitution.
It is further prayed that inquiry be held for initiating Flood Relief/Rehabilitation project over a sight which does not fall within the flood affected area at all and is a rain stream way only which amount to wastage of the public funds and against the public policy ."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that development work is being carried out without conducting survey and obtaining planning permission / approval. He adds than Post Flood National Highway Rehabilitation Project Package ("PNHRP") requires scrutiny and determination front the relevant agencies for specification of areas affecting national highway but needful was not done before initiating the development work. He further submits that the funds delivered by Asian Development Bank could not be utilized for development in question. He contends that construction of bridge in question would badly damage and ruin the business of petitioners. In the end, he submits that impugned project is wastage of public funds, hence, liable to be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He has relied upon In re: Suo Motu Case No.5 of 2010 (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 731), Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 206), Abdul Raheem Ziaratwal and another v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 873) Arshad Waheed v. Province of Punjab and others (PLD 2010 Lahore 510) and Muhammad Alam and others v. Planning and Development Department, Government of Balochistan through Additional Chief Secretary and others (PLD 2014 Balochistan 1).
3. Conversely , learned Law Officer, assis ted by learned counsel for respondent-N HA, submits that construction of project is a technical matter and work is being executed in accordance with law. He has relied upon Danyore RCC Bridge in the matter of Suo Motu No.6 of 2009 , (2015 GBLR 196), Mst. Nasreen Riaz and another v. Lahore Development Authority through Director General L.D.A. Plaza Eastern Road, Lahore and 2 others (1998 CLC 1099 ), Muhammad Nawaz Malik and others v. Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 2011 Lahore 160) and Muhammad Khan v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Communication, Islamabad and 4 others (2012 CLC 101 ).
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. Petitioners have raised multiple contentions / questions qua development project in question. It has been argued that bridge is not being constructed after approval of design/plan, proposal and survey of the project and recommendations from concerned quart ers; it would affect petitioners' businesses of Patrol Pump, Hotel and Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory; Rod Kanwan stream is neither a Flood Stream nor an off-shoot of river rather a drainage of water in rainy season, thus, development work in question would be mere wastage of public money , in support whereof certain case law, referred supra, has also been cited. Prima facie , pleas of petitioners have not been substantiated, at this stage, which even otherwise involve disputed questions of facts. A thorough probe and detailed inquiry is essential for determination of said questions. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise IA of constitutional jurisdiction.
6. This Court is not inclined to pass any direction creating any hindrance in the ongoing development work as public welfare schemes, after having been put in operation, give rise to legitimate expectations, which cannot be allowed to be frustrated. The projects once approved and put in, operation must be completed otherwise substantial amount in millions, already incurred, would be wasted.
7. Even otherwise, construction of bridge is a technical matter . Normally , the Courts lack expertise to express any opinion as to technical expertise, therefore, ordinarily refrain from entering into the policymaking domain of executive authority unless the same smacked of arbitrariness, favouritism and in total disregard for mandate of law .
8. At the same time, respondents, being public functionaries, are required to redress grievance of petitioners strictly in accordance law, justly , fairly and without any discrimination. Therefore, I am inclined to transmit copy of this petition along with its annexures to respondent No.2, with the direction to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and all concerned, preferably within a period of thirty day's from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order . Thereafter , petitioners shall be at liberty to avail alternate remedy , if any available to them under the law , if they are not satisfied with the decision.
9. With the above observations and direction this petition is disposed of. All pending C.Ms. also stand disposed of accordingly .