ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.----Through this Constitution Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notificatio n No.8-6/2019/SO-I (S&GAD), dated 12.04.2019 issued by the Government of Balochistan, Services and Gen: Admn: Department, whereby respondent No.3/Mr . Abdul Wahid Kakar (Retired BCS/BS-19) has been appointed as Senior Coordination Officer, CPEC in Chief Secretary Office, Balochistan on contract basis for a period of two years.
2. Heard arguments and perused the record.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for determination in this Constitution Petition is, as to whether the petitioner is an 'aggrieved person' from the Notification No.8-6/2019/SO-1(S&GAD), dated 12.04.2019 issued by the respondent(s), whereby Mr. Abdul Wahid Kakar (Retired BCS/BS-19) has been appointed on contract basis as Senior Coordination Officer, CPEC in Chief Secretary Office, Balochistan and the petitioner has locus standi to file the instant Constitution Petition? In this regard, it is observed that under Article 199 of the Constitution, a petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy as to how the petitioner is an 'aggrieved person' pressin g for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against contract employment of a retired Government Servant (respondent No.3) in CPEC Authority established under Section 3 of the China- Pakistan Economic Corridor Authority Ordinance, 2019 (hereinafter "the Ordinance"). Section 3(2) of the Ordinance reveals that CPEC Authority is a body corporate.
4. A person cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' unless he has a right in the performance of statutory duty by a person performing functions in respect of any right which he may have in relation to the performance of such function. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Ahbab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v.
Commissioner , Lahore Division PLD 1978 Lahore 273. Likewise, a person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court must establish direct or indirect injury to himself and his substantial interest in the subject matter .
Reference in this regard is made to the case of Jan Muhammad v . Government of N.W .F.P. 1993 CLC 1067 .
5. To satisfy the requirements of an 'aggrieved person' in public interest litigation under Article 199 of the Constitution; the petitioner needs to disclose a personal interest in the performance of legal duty owed to him which if not performed would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege in liberty or franchise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ardeshir Kowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC) Karachi 1999 SCMR 2883 .
6. Furthermore, there is a wisdom in the use of word 'aggrieved' appearing in Article 199 of the Constitution because it helps in checking litigation for the sake of litigation by those who may not be aggrieved. So, that the Courts are confronted with real questions which should occupy their attention and not question which are academic in nature involving political issues and where the issuance of a writ is mere futile exercise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tasbhai Motibhai Desai v . Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578.
7. At least the petitioner is duty bound to tell this Court beyond what was said rhetorically by him whether any of his proprietary or personal rights had been invaded by the said Notification and thus, he had a locus standi. Reference in this regard is made to the cases of Abdul Majeed v. Deputy Commissioner , Sialkot 1991 CLC 1995 and Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada v . Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Karachi 9 .
8. Besides, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to establish locus standi in the context of public interest litigation, the petitioner would have to show that he belongs to class of affected persons who are unable to access the Court for the prote ction of their rights. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v . Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455 .
9. The petitioner does not fall within the definition of an 'aggrieved person' and he has no locus standi to file the instant Constitution Petition to challenge the Notification dated 12.04.2019.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Constitution Petition is dismissed in limine.