MRS. RASHIDA ASAD, J.---Petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing captioned petition and have prayed that:- i. Declare that the act of respondent No.7 to issue the impugned inquiry letter dated 17.3.2020, against the petitioners Messrs G.F.S. Builder and Developer private partnership firm advertising the project "North Town Residency", as such act of respondents is illegal, unlawful, mala fide, arbitrary , capricious and colorful exercise of authority; ii.. Declare that the Anti-Corruption Establishment Act, 1947 applied only on "Public Servant" whereas, the petitioner(s) is private entity builder and developer does not fall within the definition of Public Servant, so Anti- Corruption ,Establishment has no authority under the law to initiate inquiry , therefo re, the act of respondent is void ab-initio utter violation of law; iii. Declare the act of respondent No.10 visited the site office of the petitioners and created harassment to the site office staff under the garb of Anti-Corruption inquiry is illegal, unlawful, utter violation of Article 18 of the Constitution 1973; iv. Suspend the operation and finally set aside of impugned letter dated 17.3.2020 issued by respondent No.7 without lawful authority; v. Restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners till the disposal of this petition; vi. Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate and proper in the circumstances of this case.
2. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in the construction, development and other allied business. The petitioner had launched a project in the name and style of "North Town Residency" situated at different Dehs, Jam Chakro, Halkani and Surjani District Karachi West and started booking of open plots on easy monthly installments basis, but all of sudden respondent No.7 issued a letter dated 17.3.2020 to respondent No.11, seeking information with regard to fraud about allotment of 200-0 acres land situated in Jam Chakro and Halkani District West Karachi and 100-0 acres land allotted in Na-Class No.1 in Deh Taiser Town. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No.11 in the garb of said letter harassing the petitioners without any justification, as such, they may be restrained.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh filed parawise comments of respondent No. 7, stating therein that an inquiry in respect of fraudulent allotment of government land to the private persons has already been initiated, which is within the jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Establishment and the petitioners are not even summoned as such no harassment was being caused to them, therefore, the petitioners have no cause of action to file present petition, which may be dismissed.
4. Mr. Malik Altaf Javed, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.11 Mukhtiarkar Karachi
(West) under the garb of letter dated 17.3.2020 issued by the Office of Deputy Director , Anti-Corruption Establishment (East) Zone Karachi is harassing the petitioners without any justification. He further argued that Anti- Corruption Establishment Act, 1947 applies only to public servants, whereas, the petitioners are the private entities, builders and developers and do not fall within the definition of public servants, so Anti-Corruption Establishment has no authority under the law to initiate inquiry against the petitioners, as such, directions may be issued to them not to act contrary and against the law in causing harassment to the petitioners. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Moosa v . The State reported in 2005 CLC 487 .
5. Mr. Jan Muhammad Khuhro, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh, assisted by Mr. Aijaz Ahmed Qaimkhani, Assistant Director , Anti-Corruption Establ ishment East Zone, Karachi, has opposed this petition and submits that this petition is not maintainable under the law as the correspondence with regard to illegal allotment of government land has been made in between respondents Nos.7 and 11 and the petitioners are nothing to do with the impugned letter and no notice or summon has been issued to the petitioners, but the petition ers have approached this Court without any cause of action; therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record carefully with their able assistance.
7. It is noted that the whole controversy of this petition revolves towards a letter dated 17.3.2020 issued by the respondent No.7 to respondent No.11 regarding an inquiry about the status of Government land. However , at the very outset, we inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any action has been proposed or has been taken against them by the respondents, he replied in negative. On perusal of record, it reveals that the petitioners have no material to show that their fundamental rights have been breached or threatened at the hands of respondents, thus in absence of any material/ notice, the Petitioners cannot raise the dispute. Mere anticipation, that punitive action would be taken against the petitioners is no ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The honourable apex Court time and again reiterated that mere apprehension is insuf ficient to entertain a writ petition. In this regard, reliance is placed in the cases of National Steel Rolling Mills and others v. Province of West Pakistan reported in 1968 SCMR 317 and Hundal Dass v. District Nazim and others reported in 2004 YLR 2031 .
8. It is argued by learned Assistant Advo cate General Sindh that a Civil Suit No. Nil of 2019 [re. Messrs Global Solutions Builders and Developers v. Province of Sindh and others] is also pending before this Court, involving the same land, therefore, according to him, the petitioners, by filing the instant constitutional petition, have tried to convert the civil litigation into criminal litigation, which is totally unwarranted and same amounts to abuse of the process of law. So far as, the impugned letter dated 17.03.2020 issued by Anti-Corruption Establishment Department to the Mukhtiarkar for inquiring the status of government land involved in this petition is concerned, suffice it to say that concerned department can make inquiries in order to ascertain the actual position with regard to land, which is within their domain in accordance with law .
9. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners conceded this fact that petitioners are not the owner of the land involved in this petition, meaning thereby , the petitioners are neither aggrieved, nor they have any legal right or locus-standi to file instant petition. Needless to say that legal right is one, which is recognized and protected by the laws of State and enforceable before the Court of law which is lacking in this case.
10. Since in the instant case, at this stage, no action has been proposed or initiated against the petitioners by the respondents, therefore, we are of the view that instant petition is premature, whereas, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners, which may justify the filing of instant petition. Consequently , the instant petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed along with listed application.
11. These are the detailed reasons for our short order of even date, which was in the following terms,- "Parties advocate have been heard at length. They have concluded their arguments. For the reasons to be recorded later , instant petition is dismissed along with listed application.