1. SADAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA, Acting C.J.---- Through the above titled writ petitions filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Election Amendment Act, 2021 dated 08.02.2021 to the extent of section 24 by omitting proviso and subsections (1) to (4) has been challenged for having been issued without lawful authority. A further direction is also sought to the respondents not to remove the petitioners and the other State Subjects in the voter list pertaining to the year, 2016 who have been enrolled after getting NOC for costing their right to vote on temporary address or the area they want to settle or resides in.
2. As common questions of fact and law are involved in the above titled writ petitions, hence, were heard together and decided as such through this single judgment.
3. Shortly stated facts of the supra titled writ petitions are that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir have promulgated amendment in Election Act, 2020 through Azad Jammu and Kashmir Election Amendment Act, 2021 on 08.02.2021 which is against the bask principle of natural justice, especially preventing the petitioners and other State Subject holders from using the rights of vote and section 24 omitting the proviso as well as subsections and lemmatizing the petitioners from costing their votes. The petitioners have challenged the amended Act I of 2021 dated 08.02.2021 to the extent of amendment in section 24.
4. The instant writ petitions have been resisted by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein the claim of the petitioners has been negated and prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petitions.
5. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated the facts and grounds as taken in the writ petitions as well as written statement, therefore, there Is no need to reproduce the same.
6. I have heard the learned, counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a pivotal point that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable that the petitioners have not arrayed the necessary parties in the writ petitions i.e Public at Large.
8. As a matter of rule, all the beneficiaries were necessary party but the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to implead them as party. In my estimation, in absence of necessary party, no direction can be issued. Law is well settled that no writ can be issued in absence of a necessary party. A reference can be made to a case titled "Shahbaz Khan v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commission, Islamabad" [PLD 2003 (Lah.) 125], wherein at 135, it is observed as under:- "It is better and appropriate to mention that final Notification was issued on 28.06.2002 in para.4 of which it is specifically mentioned that the Election Commission had received a total number of 945 objections/ representations against preliminary delimitation of 849 constituencies out of which 307 pertained to the National Assembly and 638 to Provincial Assemblies. The details mentioned in the Notification reveal that the representations received qua District Sheikhupura were decided after' providing hearing by the learned Member Election Commission on 15.06.2002.
9. The petitioners did not implead any of the objectors as respondents. The petitioners did not attach order of the learned Member Election Commission along with the writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned Notification was finally issued on the basis of order of the learned Member Election Commission dated 15.06.2002. The petitioners did not challenge the vires of said order through these writ petitions. The writ petitions could, therefore, be dismissed as the petitioners failed to implead the objectors as respondents."
10. The same principle has also been laid down in a case titled as "Zahid Mehmood Shah and 24 others v. Azad Government and 14 others" [2011 SCR 159], which is as under:- "5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care. It is evident from the record that Member Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 25th April, 2001. The order was challenged by way of writ petition in the High Court and only Member Board of Revenue was arrayed as party. The Board of Revenue was not arrayed as party in the case. For resolving the proposition whether the Board of Revenue is necessary party or not, we have to resort to section 6(3) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993. It provides that any order made or decree passed by a Member Board of Revenue would be deemed to be the order or decree of. Board of Revenue, therefore, the Board of Revenue is a necessary, party."
11. Similarly, in the case reported as "Shafoat Hayya t v. Muhammad Shahid Ashraf and 18 others"
12. [2005 SCR 57], the Hon'ble apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir observed as under:- "Necessary Party-- --Writ was not properly constituted--- Impugned orders were passed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee---- The Selection Committee was not impleaded as party----If a necessary party in whose absence no effective writ could be issued was not impleaded, the writ is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground."
13. "Necessary Parry---- ----Minister Incharge was the competent authority---He should have been impleaded in the line of respondents because he had to implement the directions of mandamus issued by the Court--- He was not impleaded---On account of this formal defect the writ petition was not 'properly constituted."
14. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons, therefore, they cannot file the instant writ petitions. It is a settled principle of law that every person by his own sweet will cannot file the writ petition as pro bono publico until and unless he fulfills the conditions to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner while invoking such jurisdiction has to show that he was litigating firstly, in public interest and secondly, for public good or for welfare of general public. The petitioners failed to show any such interest, therefore, they are not aggrieved persons and they could not invoke the constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court as pro bono public as laid down in a case reported as "Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others"
15. [PLD 2004 SC 482], wherein it has been held as under:-- "No doubt with the development of new concept of public interest litigation in the recent years, a person can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Superior Courts as probono publico but while exercising this jurisdiction, he has to show that he is litigating, firstly in the public interest and secondly, for the public good or for the welfare of the general public."
16. The same principle has been laid down in the cases titled "Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Akram v.
17. Federation Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defenadd others" [1998 SCMR 2073] and "Ghiasul Haq and others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others".
18. [PLD 1980 SC AJ&K 5].
19. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in an unreported judgment titled "Fatal Mehmood Baig, Advocate v. The University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and others" decided on 06.06.2017, wherein, it has been held as under:- "We have given our serious thought to, the relevant provisions of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, which postulates that, one can move the Court pro bono publico to challenge the vires of law on the ground that the same offends the provisions of the Constitution. The person who seeks a command from the High Court for enforcement of fundamental right must first show as to how he is an aggrieved person. A writ can be issued only on the petition of an aggrieved person and not by a pro bono publico litigant. In other words a person whose interests have been adversely affected by the impugned legislation or order under challenge, he can competently file a writ petition and then file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court as required by law."
20. In case in hand, I am not in position to gather anything to ascertain that how the petitioners are aggrieved persons by the act of respondents. herein. Suffice it to observe that only a person who has suffered legal injury can file a writ petition for redressal of his/her F grievance and no third party can be permitted to have access to the Court for the purpose of seeking redressal for the person injured, therefore, the instant writ petitions are liable to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redressal is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his/her legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his/her legal right or legally protected interest by any such action.
21. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress. This is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. This Court is concerned with the question whether the petitioners could be said to be "persons aggrieved" so as to be entitled to file the instant petitions. The Court in a unanimous view held that the petitioner was not entitled to file the petition because he was not a "person aggrieved" by any way. According to law a "person aggrieved" must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something the petitioners as well as every State Subject holder claims the privileges' like service, seats -for admission in professional colleges etc. It is very astonishing that the petitioners deny the right of vote from where they claim their residence on permanent basis. If any person does not want to cast his vote on the basis of permanent residence then he must waive the privileges of permanent residence.
22. The petitioners themselves mentioned their permanent residence in CNIC and in the writ petitions claiming that they are residing at the present address for last many years, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioners reveals that they have wrongly declared their permanent residences in the Application Form for CNIC. The Election Commission, NADRA, Azad Government or any other authority has not mentioned the permanent address of the petitioners in their respective CNIC.
23. It is very alarming that during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have no residence at their permanent address.
24. The whys and whereforces lead me to the conclusion that no legal right of the petitioners appears to be infringed, therefore, they do not fall within the definition of aggrieved persons and have no locus standi to file the instant writ petitions.
25. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in the, above titled writ petitions, therefore, the same stand dismissed with no order as to the costs.