Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Imtiaz Ahmed Ghulam Rasool Janvery , seeks a direction to respondent No.1 (Secretary , Establishment Division) and respondent No.2 (Capital Development Authority) to conduct an inquiry against respondents No.4 (M/s IRTIFA Group) and responden t No.5 (Muhammad Shoaib) for having committed fraud by not giving the petitioner possession of Hotel Suite size 315 square feet, 2nd Floor , Rooms No.19 and 20 in Montviro Hotel and Theme Park, Islamabad. The petitioner also wants respondent No.3 (Federal Investigation Agency) to conduct an inquiry against respondents No.4 and 5 and to block respondent No.5' s CNIC.
2. The petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the contract dated 05.07.2018 executed between the petitioner and Montviro Private Limited through respondent No.5 for the sale of the said Hotel Suite. The petitioner claims to have paid Rs.42,84,000/- as part of the sale consideration for the said property . His complaint is that fraud has been played on him by respondents No.4 and 5 as they could not transfer the ownership in the said property to the petitioner .
3. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot issue a writ to respondents No.4 and 5, which are not persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a province or a local authority .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether the petitioner had submitted any complaint against respondents No.4 and 5 to respondent No.2 and / or respondent No.3. His response was in the negative. If the petitioner feels that he has been defrauded by respondents No.4 and 5, he may avail the remedy of filing a complaint before the Regulator / respondent No.2 and / or respondent No.3. Without having filed such complaints, the petitioner could not have directed to approach this Court.
5. In order to seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus , it is obligatory for the petitioner to have first approached respondent No.2 and / or respondent No.3 to seek the redressal of his grievances. Failure to do so would render a writ petition incompetent. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of District Magistrate, Lahore Vs. Syed Raza Kazim ( PLD 1961 SC 178 ), wherein it was held as follows:- "There are other good reasons, too, upon which this application for a writ of mandamus must fail. The accepted conditions for the grant of a writ of this nature are that it must be preceded by a demand of justice and the refusal thereof and that there should be no other equally expeditious, in expensive and efficacious remedy available to the person seeking this extraordinary remedy ."
6. Additionally , the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan Vs. Asad Javed etc. (PLD 2016 Islamabad 53) held inter alia that a demand for the performance of a duty ought to be made and the same had to be met with a refusal by the public officer or authority before the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution for seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to take his complaint before the Regulator or the appropriate law enforcement agency and in the event of inaction on their part, he may approach this Court.
8. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed in limine .