1. ' AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, J.---The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Qazi Muhammad Issa who inherited the property known as 2-Zarghoon (Lytton) Road, Quetta after his death. A portion of the said property was sold which eventually was purchased by respondents Nos.5 and 6 on Khasra No,238/140, 141/142-143 comprising of 15618 sq.Ft.
2. ' On the property of late Qazi Muhammad Issa a house was built where he and his family including the petitioners used to reside. According to the petitioners, father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah resided in the said house on various occasions whenever he visited Quetta, therefore, the petitioners made all attempts to preserve the said house in its original condition.
3. ' After purchase of the portion of the plot adjacent to the said house respondents Nos.5 and 6 applied to respondent No,1 i,e, the Municipal Engineer for permission to raise construction over the said site. The respondent No,1 vide its letter No,1158 dated 2-2-1993 issued Building Permit to the respondents to build 'Flats and Rooms' in Type I-III in strict conformity with all requirements of Quetta Municipal Earthquake Proof Building Code, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as Building Code) and all other bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation. According to Rule 44 of the Building Code all buildings must conform to one of the following types which have been designated to give sufficient variety in cost and quakeproofness to suit the pockets of all classes. Similarly according to Rule 50 of the said Building Code following provision was made: "No residential building with its outhouses, garages, latrines etc., may cover more than 60% of the site allotted to it. In other words, open spaces in the form of suitably place courtyard etc. Must invariably be provided amounting in area to at least 2/3rd of the area covered by the buildings."
4. ' It is case of the petitioners that the builders submitted two sets of building plans. In one plan the proposed building was shown to be "Flats and Rooms." In another proposed construction was shown as "Flats". By this methodology they, in fact, wanted the authorities to believe that purely a 'residential building' is being built. They, however, submitted a revised plan. Under the garb of 'residential building' when the builders started excavating a basement for raising commercial offices on the site, respondent No,1 directed the builders to stop all construction failing which action, according to law, shall be taken against them.
5. ' According to the petitioners, since builders were influential persons, they managed, in connivance with certain officers to get a "Technical Committee" appointed. This, in fact, was in utter violation of Building Code which did not have any provision of so-called Technical Committee or Building Control Board. The Committee was being chaired by Superintending Engineer C&W Department and 2 members. However the Municipal Engineer of Quetta Municipal Corporation was not a member of the so-called 'Technical Committee'. The said Technical Committee issued an 'Inspection Report'. Stating therein that after visiting the site alongwith builders they found that the specifications are followed properly, as instructed by the Municipal Engineer during approval of the project. The case of the petitioners is that all such proceedings were undertaken at the behest of builders in utter violation of the Building Code. Despite the clear directions by the Municipal Engineer to stop the work, the builders have started construction work at a very rapid pace.
6. According to the petitioners the builders submitted different plans to deceive the authorities and thus they overnight redesignated the plan to construct commercial building in a residential area without seeking permission from the competent authority. They have not obtained 'NOC' from the authority under Balochistan Building Control Ordinance, 1979.
7. ' The second limb of the argument was that the petitioners are residents of Quetta and as a citizen of this country they are interested to bring to the notice of the Court the fact that Quetta Town is situated on a highly sensitive seismic zone and one of the most devastating earthquake jolted Quetta in 1935 killing about 60,000 persons. In order to avoid any future disaster of earthquake after 1935 the then authorities decided to put a ban on multistoreyed buildings. They after taking into consideration the expert opinion promulgated "Quetta Building Code" hereinafter referred to as the "Code" as back as in 1937 with a view to prevent future destruction of buildings and population and for safety of the citizens.
8. ' Giving background of this Code it was stated that the object for which the Code was prepared was to provide a set of rules and regulations for designing of buildings so as to afford a reasonable degree of safety both to the occupants and to passersby in the event of earthquake. The Code contains in addition of designing the buildings certain other instructions to minimise the chances of complete destructions. A specific method for obtaining building permits was formulated and there were plans and specifications of different types of buildings. There was specially a system of inspection of the buildings, and there was also a provision that every building shall have its parts tied together in such a manner that the structure will act as a unit. In short it was a complete code which has been devised keeping in view the fact that this town is built on a highly seismic zone.
9. With the passage of time other laws, Rules, Ordinances etc. Were promulgated but the Building Code was never repealed. The petitioners argued that in recent past the builders have altogether ignored this Code and have successfully manipulated to erect multistoreyed buildings in the town having no regards to the safety of passersby or occupants of the buildings. Some of multistoreyed buildings are nothing more than standing graves or cages to trap human lives in case there is any earthquake because there is no open space left in the design of buildings where the citizens take shelter in case of earthquake. The petitioners explained that certain officers out of sheer greed raised no objection. So much so that the Chairman of so-called "Board" formed for inspection of buildings himself got a multistoreyed buildings constructed having no regard for the Building Code.
10. ' Mr. Basharatullah appearing on behalf of petitioners divulged the historical background of different laws applicable to Quetta Municipal Corporation. While giving the history, the counsel submitted that in 1896 Quetta Municipal Laws were enacted. The Quetta Municipal Laws, 1896 was repealed by Quetta Municipal Laws of 1946. Similarly Federal Government promulgated Municipal Administration Ordinance IX of 1960. Thereafter Ordinance I of 1972 known as Balochistan People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated followed by Balochistan Local Government Act, 1975. Subsequent thereto Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and then Balochistan Local Government Ordinance II of 1980 have been made applicable.
11. ' Attending to Building Control Laws the learned counsel submitted that besides the Building Code, Balochistan Building Control Ordinance, 1979 was framed which, however, could not be made applicable as it contained provision that the same shall take effect only from the date when notification is issued. However, main argument was that with this background of laws the Building Code was saved throughout. So much so that at one time the Government thought to devise Quetta Master Plan which also contains provision in consonance with the Building Code.
12. ' According to Mr. Basharatullah the builders have to file an application seeking permission and then the plans shall have to be submitted to Quetta Municipal Corporation. This would be scrutinized and every building shall have to be constructed in accordance with the provisions of Building Code in order to avoid any disaster on account of any future earthquake.
13. ' Mr. Faez Qazi proposed that Quetta city ought to be horizontally expanded and not vertically developed. According to him, construction of multistoreyed buildings means nothing but expansion of Quetta city vertically. In fact, instantaneously, it may fulfil residential requirements of mushroom population growth. But ultimately it would be responsible for the total destruction and devastation of the entire population. It was argued that personal and individual benefits of builders must be subservient to the safety of lives of millions of citizens.
14. ' Learned Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan argued that the Government of Balochistan promulgated Ordinance known as ' Balochistan Building Control Ordinance, 1979'. According to section 2 of the said Ordinance the same shall be effective only from the date specified in the notification. But no notification was ever issued. Thus the said Ordinance is not operative. Besides, he made distinction between Building Code and Building Control Ordinance, 1979 saying that the former is a specific law for Quetta; whereas the latter is a law for the entire Province and not specific for Quetta which is situated on a highly sensitive earthquake zone. He, therefore, supported the petitioners' plea that Building Code is still in vogue and applicable for building in Quetta Town and it is the only law which is operational and regulating construction of private buildings. He, therefore, did not oppose if the prayer made in petition is granted to such extent by the Court.
15. ' However, the above contentions were emphatically opposed by respondents' counsel Mr. Tariq Mehmood. He firstly challenged maintainability of this petition on the ground that prayer is vague and in general terms involving several buildings, but builders not being party, therefore, the same cannot be granted. According to Mr.Tariq Building Code is no more applicable. He made an attempt to meet the arguments of Mr. Basharatullah according to whom in all the laws there has been a saving clause as regards application of Building Code. Mr. Tariq submitted that such saving clause could provide immunity to the Building Code only if there has been no inconsistency between the present laws and the old law. While reading from the provisions of different laws Mr. Tariq argued that as there are inconsistencies and differences in similar provisions, therefore law which is subsequent and is in existence shall supersede provisions of old law which shall be deemed to have been repealed. In order to fortify his point of view he invited our attention to 1982 SCMR 522 and 1995 SCMR 362.
16. ' Besides, he argued that the Government was conscious about the sensitivity of the area to earthquake and therefore, it constituted a 'Technical Committee'. The role assigned to the Committee was to examine suitability of such buildings and plans. In order to do the job, the 'Technical Committee' visited the site of respondents' building and after inspection approved construction of said building. The counsel canvassed that this Technical Committee comprised of highly qualified Engineers, therefore, it cannot be questioned that such building in future shall be dangerous to human lives in case of earthquake. The counsel praised the technical know-how of the members and also highlighted the advanced Engineering Technology saying that the old days are gone when the buildings were used to be built without following the ratio of cement, iron bars etc. ' It was also argued by the learned counsel that the petitioners voluntarily sold major portion of the land to respondents, therefore, now petitioners have no locus standi to challenge construction of building on the ground of privacy. The counsel further submitted that on the same road in the near vicinity another multistoreyed building which is ostensibly used as Hotel has been constructed and respondents' multistoreyed building provides a shelter to privacy of petitioners.
17. ' The counsel invited our attention to a number of photographs of multistoreyed buildings constructed on different roads of Quetta Town and submitted that it would be harsh if all such buildings are not demolished and only orders regarding respondents' building are passed because no body has ever filed any complaint on construction of such multistoreyed buildings.
18. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments so advanced. It may be observed that this case has a unique feature which involves question of construction of multistoreyed buildings in Quetta Town which admittedly is situated on a sensitive earthquake zone. We have been reminded that in 1935 as many as 60,000 people were killed in earthquake. Thereafter the then authorities pondered over the situation and promulgated Building Code. It was decided that no private building shall be constructed in Quetta Town as against the provisions of Building Code. Different specifications and classes of building with specified material to be used in each type of building have been mentioned. A procedure has been laid down how such buildings are constructed and that no building shall be constructed without a certificate issued by Municipal Engineer. It is clearly laid down in rule 44 of the Building Code of Type I that 'the height of buildings of this classs must not exceed 30 feet from the ground floor to the top of the roof in case of buildings having a flat reinforced concrete roof or 28 feet from the ground floor to caves in the case of buildings having a pent roof subject always to confirmity---with the building angle as defined in Rule 48. Before proceeding further the first question which requires consideration is whether the Building Code for Quetta Municipal Corporation, has been impliedly repealed and substituted by any other law or in the alternate the same is still effective and operative. In this regard we have to take into consideration different laws as pointed out by counsel for the parties. This Building Code was formulated after the Quetta earthquake of 1935, therefore, the laws subsequent thereto shall be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition and questions raised therein.
19. ' Mr. Faez Qazi argued that there has been no objection that Quetta Building Code is no more applicable, therefore, the Court may presume that the same is still effective. In this regard he argued that private respondents submitted their application under the Building Code, 1937 and they obtained permission from Quetta Municipal Corporation in accordance with Building Code.
20. But since private respondents wanted to construct building against the provisions of Building Code, therefore, instead of Engineer of Quetta Municipal Corporation they managed constitution of a '
21. Technical Committee' which, in fact, has no legal sanction behind it. It was emphatically urged that in presence of Quetta Building Code, there was no need at all for constitution of a ' Technical Committee' by the Chairman of Board. The Committee instead of following the provisions of Building Code, for ulterior motives allowed construction of multistoreyed building so much so that allegedly Chairman of the Board is a co-sharer in a multistoreyed building at Jinnah Road, Quetta.
22. ' The petitioners' counsel Mr. Basharatullah argued that under section 194 of Quetta Municipal Law, 1946 earlier law of 1896 was repealed. But there was a saving clause which protected Building Code. Section 194 is reproduced as under:- "194. Repeal and saving.---The Quetta Municipal Law, 1896 is hereby repealed.
23. ' Provided that, the Municipality constituted, Committee established, limits defined, appointments, rules, regulations, bye-laws and orders made, any Town Planning Scheme drawn up and sanctioned, notifications and notices issued taxes, ceases, rates and fees imposed, or assessed, rates recovered, contracts entered into, suits instituted and all acts and things whatsoever done under the said law, shall, continue in force and operation and deemed to have been respectively constituted, established, defined, made, drawn up and sanctioned, issued, imposed or assessed, recovered, entered into, instituted and done under this law until superseded by appropriate action under this law."
24. ' Similarly when Federal Government promulgated Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 the same repealed Municipal Law of 1946 by virtue of section 4 of the said Ordinance. Subsection (2) of section 4 however, again saved earlier laws including Building Code in the following terms:-- "(2) Where an enactment stands repealed under subsection (1), any appointment, rule, regulation, or bye-law made, notification, order or notice issued, tax imposed or assessed, contract entered into, suit instituted or action taken under such enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance and the rules, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, imposed or assessed, entered into, instituted or taken under this Ordinance."
25. ' Likewise when Ordinance I of 1972 known as Balochistan People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated, in similar terms, under section 3(2), the Rules, regulations, scheme or bye- laws made were protected until superseded under the said Ordinance. The Government of Balochistan then promulgated Balochistan Local Government Act, 1975 which again provided a saving clause in exact terms as stated in the preceding laws. Exactly in the same terms Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1979 also provided under section 4 an identical provision of saving.
26. Subsequently Ordinance H of 1980 was issued whereby section 4 was introduced providing for repeal and savings in particular. The British Balochistan Bazar Fund Regulation, 1910 in respect of rural Councils and Town Committees, and Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1979 were repealed but rules, regulations, or bye-laws were saved in almost identical terms.
27. ' From the survey of above laws it becomes abundantly clear that the Legislature intended to protect the rules, regulations, scheme, bye-laws. But Mr. Tariq Mehmood contended that this saving clause provide immunity only if there is no inconsistency or difference of laws, rules, regulations with the provisions of subsequent laws. He referred to 1982 SCMR 522. We have gone through the said case in which a contention was raised that a rule made under statute cannot override or prevail upon provisions of parent statute. In case of inconsistency between a rule and statute the same must be reconciled. The provisions of parent statute prevail only if conflict is incapable of being resolved. In this ratio the word market and agreements of sale as well as other items were discussed and it was held that Rule 4 was not inconsistent with the same words used in Fifth Schedule to Order, rule 4 was held intra vires of the main statute.
28. ' Applying the ratio of this judgment we have to see whether there was any inconsistency of similar provisions in laws, regulations, bye laws promulgated subsequent to Building Code, 1937. Our attention was drawn to Chapter VI, section 77 of Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 which deals with erection and re-erection of buildings. We have carefully examined section 77(2) of the Ordinance which reads as under:--- "77. Erection and re-erection of Buildings:--(1) ..
(2) A person intending to erect or re-erect a building shall apply for sanction in the manner provided in the bye-laws, and shall pay such fees as may be levied by the Municipal Committee with the previous sanction of the Controlling Authority."
29. ' This section is to be read with section 121 of the Ordinance which prescribes power to make rules.
30. Both those sections are to be read with item 37 of the Fourth Schedule as regards buildings control and reads as under:--- "Fourth Schedule:
37. Building Control.--The manner in which a Municipal Committee shall exercise control and regulate the erection and re-erection of buildings in a municipality."
31. ' From these provisions Mr. Tariq Mehmood, attempted to argue that since under section 77 of the said Ordinance a different mode has been prescribed, therefore, the saving clause will not provide any immunity to the Building Code in view of the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court. We have perused section 77 minutely and we have also reproduced subsection (2) which lays down that a person shall apply for sanction in the manner provided in the bye-laws, all such applications shall be registered in the manner provided under bye-laws. It also provides that a Municipal Committee may for reasons to be stated in writing reject a site plan or a building plan.
32. The counsel failed to produce before us whether any bye-laws except Building Code has been promulgated by the Federal Government or Provincial Government, the provisions of which are different than the Building Code, Therefore it is not easy to say that the Building Code has not been saved on the ratio of the judgment stated hereinabove. The provisions as mentioned in section 77 are not in conflict or inconsistent with the Building Code.
33. ' We have also perused section 50 of Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980 which has prescribed the functions of a local council. But again section 50(2) clearly lays down that a local council may, subject to Chapter XI and to rules, regulations and through its bye-laws and if the Government so directs shall subject to allocation of funds undertake all or any of the functions enumerated in Fifth Schedule. Items Nos.24 and 25 of Fifth Schedule are regarding Building Control.
34. But again no bye-laws have been placed before us different from Building Code for erection or re- erection of Buildings in Quetta Town.
35. From the above discussion we have come to the conclusion that since all the bye-laws, rules and regulations have been saved continuously in all subsequent legislation and no rules, bye-laws have been framed which could be substituted for Building Code, therefore, this argument of respondents' counsel that there has been inconsistency in the provisions of subsequent laws with Building Code is devoid of force.
36. ' Another argument raised was that the Government of Balochistan promulgated Ordinance VI of 1979 known as Balochistan Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979. Section 2 of said Ordinance declares that nothing contained in any other law for the time being in force shall apply to any matter regulated by this Ordinance. But subsection (2) of section I of this Ordinance has made it clear that it shall come into force from such date and in such areas as Government may, by notification, specify. The admitted position is that the Government has not notified the date and the areas to be covered by the said Ordinance, therefore, it has no applications as such.
37. ' However, it is interesting to note that Ordinance X of 1960 (Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960) provides for Master Plan or Town Planning. Section 74 of the said Ordinance reads as under:-- - "74. Master Plan. --A Municipal Committee may, and if so required by the Controlling Authority shall, draw up a Master Plan for municipality which shall, among other matters, provid for--
(a) a survey of the municipality including its history, statistics, public services and other prescribed particulars;
(b) development, expansion, and improvement of any area within the municipality;
(c) restrictions, regulations, and prohibitions to be imposed with regard to the development of sites, and the erection and re-erection of buildings within the municipality."
38. ' In pursuance whereof the Government of Balochistan in fact has made a Master Plan and the petitioner has reproduced the relevant excerpts of the Master plan in the petition which reads as under:- "The historical as well as the instrumentally recorded data since 1905 indicate that 'all severe earthquakes are located within 240 kms radius of Quetta. About 15 earthquakes between 1852 and 1935 are known to have occurred in Balochistan which were strong enough to cause damage to structures. Some of the destructive earthquakes have been related to know active faults. (Quetta Master Plan at page 10).
39. ' Field observations and association of the 1935 earthquake suggest that this is an active fault capable of producing a major earthquake and presents the most critical seismic risk consideration to Quetta. (Quetta Master Plan at pages 10 and 11). ...The whole of Quetta Valley is either situated in a very high seismic zone or a high seismic zone indicating that the city is not ideally located and peril prevails all over the valley like a dark clouds (Quetta Master Plan at page 148).
40. ' Quetta Valley lies within an active seismic region which has experienced several destructive earthquakes in the past resulting in immense loss of life and property. The proximity of faults and peeuliar regional tectonics render this area prone to high seismic activity in the future." (Quetta Master Plan at page 194).
41. ' This report or Master Plan is consistent with Building Code. It has been observed that about 15 earthquakes between 1852 and 1935 were known to have occurred in Balochistan which were strong enough to cause damage to structures: It has further been observed that whole of Quetta Valley is either situated in a very high seismic zone or a high seismic zone indicating that the city is not ideally located and peril prevails all over the valley like a dark cloud.
42. From above observations irresistible conclusion would be that Government of Balochistan never repealed Building Code through any Ordinance or legislation or rules. So much so that Building Code for Quetta Municipality was amended on 28th of September 1986 vide Gazette Notification No,6-225/81 (PLGB) AO.III, dated 14-9-1986. What is important in this amendment is that after Clause 8 of the Building Code some new provisions were enacted but much more important is the fact that this power has been exercised under subsection (2) of section 50 read with clauses 24 and 25 of Fifth Schedule of compulsory functions of Local Government Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance H of 1980). This is a complete answer to the arguments of Mr. Tariq Mehmood that by such Ordinance different provisions have been introduced which are inconsistent with the Building Code.
43. On the other hand the Government has never framed any bye-laws or regulations because Building Code was there and it was only amended in 1986. In such circumstances it is not fair on the part of private respondents to say that Building Code has been repealed or the same is deemed to have been repealed by changes or inconsistency in subsequent legislation. The Government of Balochistan was very much conscious of this fact that Building Code is in existence, effective and operative, therefore, when Master Plan was ordered under section 74 of Municipal Administration Ordinance, the same also was in line with Building Code.
44. ' We, therefore, unhesitatingly hold that the Building Code is still operative to regulate construction of buildings in Quetta Valley in the area of Quetta Municipal Corporation.
45. ' Mr. Tariq Mehmood, however, contended that this petition is not maintainable because no writ can be issued to redress an individual injury. Reliance was placed on PLD 1992 Karachi-54. We have carefully perused the said judgment. While discussing "public interest litigation" it was observed that public interest litigation can be initiated for judicial redress for public injury by a person not personally hurt. This principle would not apply where an association or organisation or a registered society seeks to enforce a personal right or private right of another, as distinguished from public injury. We are fully confident that the ratio renders no help to the respondents because in the same judgment it has been specifically observed that whenever the conscience of the Court was shocked on account of action or inaction on the part of the Federation or Province, the Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has been similarly observed that an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution would not necessarily mean a person having a strict legal right. Even a person who was deprived of benefit, privilege etc. By an illegal act or omission, could be considered as an aggrieved person. In the instant case the petitioners have invoked Constitutional jurisdiction seeking direction from the Court to order respondents not to allow any construction of private buildings in Quetta Town as against the provisions of Building Code as it would be detrimental to the precious lives of inhabitants of Quetta Town. Thus we do not see any force in the contention raised by Mr. Tariq Mehmood.
46. ' Another point raised was that question of facts are involved which require thorough probe as regards easement rights of the petitioners are concerned. It was contended whether on account of the building constructed on the site the air, light or right of privacy was at all affected. The counsel argued that this requires recording of evidence. He relied on 1991 MLD 1112. It was further argued that it is only the Civil Court which is competent to decide all such issues.
47. As far as prayer in the present Constitutional petition is concerned, we do not consider that any controversial question of fact is involved as regards construction of buildings and provisions of Building Code because we are not inclined to consider question of privacy in this petition which of course is the domain of Civil Court under Easements Act but we proceed to determine the question whether multistoreyed buildings so constructed are in accordance with the Building Code or Master Plan or not? This question we have already discussed in detail and we have drawn conclusions that keeping in view the past history of the town and chain of legislation on the point, the Building Code is still intact and operative which regulate construction of private buildings in Municipal Area of Quetta Town. We have also quoted Rule 44 and amendment of the same.
48. According to which the height of the building must not exceed 30 feet from the ground floor to the top of the roof in case of building having a flat reinforced concrete roof. This question does not require any further probe.
49. ' We appreciate that petitioners have come before the Court to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as regards the dangerous situation which has arisen due to construction of multistoreyed buildings in Quetta Town without observing provisions of Building Code, thus putting into peril the lives of inhabitants and passersby. The entire population of Quetta cannot be allowed to be put in danger for the benefit of few builders who are constructing plazas and multistoreyed buildings as against provisions of Building Code, 1937. We may reiterate' that Government of Balochistan constituted a high-level Board vide Notification No,SOI(LG) 5-5/93 dated 4th December, 1993 to check the mushroom growth of commercial plazas/buildings in the city limit and Quetta District excluding Panjpai. This exercise though devised for noble cause of checking Mushroom growth of such commercial plazas/buildings but unfortunately the process of such construction accelerated to the utter dismay of citizens. Secondly there is no legal sanction or authority under which the said Board has been constituted. In fact the Building Code holds the field and during its existence such an action is otherwise illegal. As far as practical aspect is concerned, from the evidence quoted by the respondents, it is prima facie proved that not only one but several multistoreyed buildings have been constructed. Thus the Board has been totally ineffective to check mushroom growth of multistoreyed buildings. We are at pains to note, provided the allegations of petitioners are correct, that even the Chairman of the Board has got share in one of the multistoried buildings at Jinnah Road, Quetta. The population of Quetta, if construction of such buildings are allowed, shall be put to the should of horrible destruction in case, God forbid, any earthquake of high grade jolts the Town. In such circumstances we are inclined to hold that the petitioners have rightly approached this Court.
50. ' The next question would be, what sort of relief can be granted to the petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners is reproduced hereunder:--- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
(i) Direct the respondent No,1 to demolish the illegal construction raised on plot bearing Khasra No,238/140-141/142-143, situated at Zarghoon (Lytton) Road, Quetta and take all necessary measures to ensure that no further illegal construction activity is carried on thereon:
(ii) Direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to strictly enforce the provisions of the Building Code, and particularly ensure that no building is constructed of a height and covering an area greater than as stipulated therein;
(iii) Direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to take immediate and effective steps for the implementation of the Quetta Master Plan, particularly provisions therein in respect of parks, open spaces and ensuring the horizontal growth of Quetta and to desist from taking any step which would deplete the available open spaces, parks or encourage the vertical growth of Quetta;
(iv) Declare that the document entitled 'Inspection Report' issued by the 'Technical Committee' constituted by the Chairman of the Building Control Board and any permission/approval/recommendation issued thereunder is ultra vires, illegal, void ab initio and of no legal effect;
(v) (a) Direct respondents Nos.5 and 6 to stop all construction activity being carried out by them, their agents, engineers, architects, servants on plot bearing Khasrra No,238/140-141/142-143, situated at Zarghoon (Lytton) Road, Quetta; or alternatively.
(b) Direct respondents Nos.5 and 6 not to construct more than a maximum of two storeys '(ground plus one floor), leave a minimum of 60% of the total site area open and un-built, ensure that privacy and comfort of the neighbours is not interfered with and comply with all ,Tzovisions of the Building Code in respect of any building/construction that they, their agents, engineers, architects, servants or successors may decide to raise on plot bearing Khasra No,238/140-141/142-143, situated at Zarghoon (Lytton) Road, Quetta.
(vi) Any other, further and/or better relief that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(vii) Exemplary costs may be awarded against each of the respondents separately."
51. ' Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the Government of Balochistan acceded to prayers (ii) and (iii) that official respondents be directed to strictly enforce the provisions of Building Code and particularly ensure that no building is constructed against the provisions of Building Code and secondly that immediate steps be taken for implementation of Quetta Master Plan. However, he opposed the first prayer.
52. ' Besides the building of private respondents 5 and 6 we may categorise for the purpose of disposal of this petition the multistoreyed buildings as under:--
(1) Multistoreyed buildings already constructed in the Town;
(2) Multistoreyed buildings which are under process of construction;
(3) Multistoreyed buildings which are planned to be constructed in future but no construction work has started so far.
53. As regards category (1) it is difficult to order demolition of the same at this stage, firstly because such buildings have already been completed Secondly the builders/owners of such buildings are not party before us, therefore, no orders can be passed against their interest, in their absence and without hearing them, Despite objection raised by Mr. Tariq Mehmood in this regard the petitioners did not implead builders/owners of such multistoreyed buildings already constructed in Quetta City. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue any direction with regard to such multistoreyed buildings.
54. ' As regards category (2) although the position of such buildings is similar to category No,1 but since such buildings are in the process of construction, therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan to issue directions to Administrator, Quetta Municipal Corporation to find out the total number of under-construction multistoreyed buildings in Quetta Town and to issue notices to the owners/builders, and after opportunity of hearing to them, order such amendment/alteration at the building plans, which commensurate with the Building Code particularly as far as height of the building is concerned, no concession shall be given to the builders. However, they shall be allowed to otherwise complete the building to the level of height already raised. We expect that the discretion shall not be exercised as against the Building Code and strict vigilance shall be required not to allow any builder to raise the height of buildings beyond limit prescribed under Building Code. The Administrator shall report number of such under- construction multistoreyed buildings within two weeks of passing of this order to the Chief Secretary, so that such builders who have plans to construct multistoreyed buildings but so far have not started construction work, may not take undue benefit of this order.
55. As far as category (3) is concerned, we hereby direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 not to allow construction of any multistoreyed building in future within local limits of Quetta City as against the provisions of Building Code, 1937.
56. ' It will be appreciated, subject to availability of funds, if the official respondents implement Quetta Master Plan particularly provisions therein in respect of parks, open spaces and ensuring horizontal growth of Quetta and in order to meet the residential requirements of the inhabitants vertical growth of the Town, be adopted.
57. ' As regards construction raised on plot bearing Khasra No,238/140- 141/142-143 situated at Zarghoon Road, Quetta the same is admittedly not, constructed on a commercial area but on a residential area i,e, Zarghoon Road, Quetta where the Governor's House and Chief Minister's House besides the Ministers houses are situated. According to Mr. Faez Qazi the builders submitted two plans in order to deceive the authorities that this building shall be used for residential purposes although in fact it is designed to be used as a commercial unit.
58. We have been informed that during pendency of the petition the builders have completed construction of infrastructure of the building and it will be very difficult to order demolition of the same at this stage, because it will be discriminatory to direct demolition of this building alone out of all. However, we make it clear that the respondents shall not use this building for any commercial purpose because Zarghoon Road is not a commercial area. However, this building shall be used only as residential flats. In this regard we direct the Municipal Engineer to take all necessary steps to ensure that building is safe and take such further steps as to ensure that the building is used for residential purposes alone.
59. ' The upshot of the above discussion would be that we allow this petition in the aforesaid terms with clear directions that the Building Code is applicable, effective and operative and official respondents shall strictly enforce the provisions of Building Code and ensure that no building in future shall be constructed in the area of Quetta Municipal Corporation against the provisions of the Building Code.
60. ' There shall be no orders as to costs.