IRSHAD HASAN KHAN J.-This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 4758/90, W.P. No 4762/90 and W.P.
No. 4767 of 1990 involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is that respondents M/S Nadeem Altaf Bukhari and Sleem Baig have illegally converted residential building No. 195-Shadman Colony No. 11, Lahore into non-residential building and are using the same as such by establishing a private Law College named City Law College' in the said premises. The aforesaid respondents have contested the writ petitions on various grounds.
3. It is not necessary to examine in detail the respective contentions of the contesting parties.
Suffice it to say that it is an admitted fact that the Director General, Lahore Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) has not so far granted any permission under the relevant provisions of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the Act) or the Building Regulations 1984 (hereinafter called the Regulations) on the application of Mr Nadeem Altaf Bukhari, Advocate, seeking permission to convert the disputed premises into non-residential. On the contrary the Authority has lodged a complaint with the Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the defaulter respondents under sections 33,34, and 35 of the Act.
4. Be that as it may, the Act and the Regulations contemplate due consideration of the application for conversion and use of a residential building to a non-residential building on merits and in conformity with the provisions laid down thereunder. It is not for this Court to decide at this stage in writ jurisdiction whether the act of the respondents, Nadeem Bukhari etc. Which is complained of is ultra vires or intra vires of the Act or the Regulations. It is for the Director General of the Authority to decide, in the first instance, whether the permission should be granted or refused, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties and other owners/tenants of the adjoining area of the disputed residential premises. Furthermore, writ jurisdiction is meant to foster justice and not to perpetuate a wrong. The contesting respondents, therefore, have a vested right to demand that their application be disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law and the petitioners are also justified in claiming that the property in dispute be not used as non-residential premises unless a valid permission is granted in this behalf by the Authority. This appears to be the most appropriate course to shorten litigation and expeditiously adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the parties, present in Court, have also agreed to the aforesaid course of action.
7. In view of the above, the Director General of the Authority is hereby directed to dispose of the application of Mr Nadeem Altaf Bukhari respondent herein, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than 60 days from today after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties including the other owners/tenants of the properties adjoining to the disputed premises.
8. It is also clarified, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties that till final disposal of the said application by the Director General, the disputed premises shall not be converted or used for non- residential purposes, either directly or indirectly.
The criminal prosecution lodged by the Authority shall be held in abeyance will final disposal of the said application in the light of the directions given in this judgment and in accordance with law.
With these observations, all the three writ petitions are disposed of but there shall be no order as to costs.