' MAMOON KAZI, C.J.---Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 in these petitions either claim to be owners or residents of a building known as Mall Square which has been constructed on Plot No,Zam/1, Zamzama Boulevard, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. Petitioner No,1 is a registered association formed by the residents of Mall Square. Respondent No,1 was originally allotted the said plot by Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, the respondent No,3 in this petition, in the year 1987 for construction of residential flats with shops on the ground floor, with the purpose of selling the units therein to the general public. By an agreement, dated 17-7-1987, executed by the respondent No,1 and the respondent No,.3, the former was initially permitted to construct ground plus eleven storeys. Building plan was sanctioned by the Clifton Cantonment Board (respondent No,4) accordingly on 27-2-1988.
2. When the residents of the area came to know about the said agreement, they made representations against it upon which the respondent No,3 modified the terms of the said agreement by another agreement, dated 13-3-1989 and the original plan, approved on 27-2-1988, was also revoked. Thereafter, a brochure was issued by the respondent No,1 proposing construction of ground plus five floors besides a mezzanine floor and one additional floor on payment of requisite fee.
3. After the said brochure was issued by the respondent No,1, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the said respondent for purchase of units in the said building.
4. Soon thereafter, the petitioners apprehended that the respondent No,1 was deviating from the building plan, as modified in pursuance of the amended agreement dated 13-3-1989, therefore, they first made verbal representations to the respondent No,1 and the Administrator of Defence Housing Authority (respondent No,2) and getting no response from either of them, they served a legal notice on respondent No,4 as the petitioners suspected collusion between the respondent No,1 and the Officers of the respondents Nos.3 and 4.
5. It subsequently transpired that certain commercial units on the ground floor had been purchased by respondent No,6 from the respondent No, 1 . A revised plan had also been approved by the respondents Nos.3 and 4, permitting twenty-three offices and one hundred and fifty shops on the mezzanine and the ground floor of the building respectively. Under such circumstances, C.P.
No,D-1192/95 and subsequently C.P. No,D-416/96 were filed.
6. When the two petitions came before us on 22-5-1996 for disposal of certain miscellaneous applications, in view of the lengthy arguments respectively advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on the merits of the case, it was decided by their consent to finally dispose of these petitions.
7. The main contentions raised by Mr.. Naimur Rehman on behalf of the petitioners in the two petitions were that notwithstanding the approval of building plan by respondent No,4, no construction could be permitted which was inconsistent with the amended agreement dated 13-3- 1989 executed by the respondent No,1 and the respondent No,3, or which was not in accordance with the brochure issued by respondent No,1 in pursuance thereof. Any increase in the number of floors or units in the said building, without corresponding alteration in the infrastructure, could not be permitted as the same could interfere with the enjoyment of amenities by the petitioners.
Permission granted by respondents Nos.3 and 4, allowing such deviations to be made in the said building, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, was also violative of the principles of natural justice, as no prior notice had been received by the petitioners before granting of approval by the said respondents.
8. The petition was resisted by the respondents as it was contended on their behalf that, no right vested in the petitioners to object to the said alterations for which permission had respectively been granted by respondents No,3 and 4 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, rules or bye-laws. If any alteration in the building plan permitted by the said respondents was found inconsistent with the brochure issued by the respondent No,1, the remedy, if any, was available to the petitioners in the form of a suit.
9. When the petitions came for hearing, vide order dated 23-10-1995 passed by this Court, the Official Assignee was appointed Commissioner to visit the said building in presence of the parties concerned to inspect the project and submit a comprehensive report indicating what impact was likely to be caused by the changes in the said building upon the use of amenities by the petitioners.
The report of the Official Assignee dated 18-2-1996, however, did not support the petitioners' contention that their use of amenities was likely to be substantially affected by such alterations.
10. Mr. Naimur Rehman, in support of his contentions, has referred to the case of Mian Fazal Din v.
Lahore Improvement Trust (PLD 1969 SC 223), where it was held that, to maintain a writ, it would be enough for the petitioner to disclose that he had a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty which, if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law, would result in loss of some personal benefit or advantage to the petitioner. But reference to Fazal Din's case appears to be misplaced as rights or obligations of the parties in the present case do not arise from any law or rules or bye-laws having the force of law, but merely from an agreement. During the arguments, no specific reference could be made by Mr. Naimur Rahman to any of the alterations which could not be legally permitted by either the respondent No,3 or the respondent No,4. The relevant provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which empower the Board to sanction or to refuse to sanction erection or re-erection of any building within specified limits for the prevention of overcrowding or in the interest of persons residing within such limit or for any other public purpose are embodied in sections 178-A, 179 and 181 of the said Act. No doubt, the proposed alterations in the building were sanctioned by respondent No,4 and there is no controversy in regard to the fact that they were inconsistent with the said agreement dated 13-3-1989 and the second brochure issued by the respondent No,1, but it is not the petitioners' case that such sanction was granted in violation of the said provisions of the said Act or the bye-laws framed by the respondent No,3 in this regard.
Therefore, even if any material deviation was made by the builders from the original scheme proposed through the said brochure issued by the respondent No,1 or the respondent No,6, mere breach of a covenant cannot be challenged in a writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the alterations in the building plan allowed by respondent No,3 or 4 in pursuance of the terms of the subsequent agreement executed by the respondent No,1 and the respondent No,3. The petitioners could only claim such right if the said alterations had violated any law or rules or bye-laws relating to construction or reconstruction of buildings. The petitioners have rested their case upon the alleged breach of contractual obligations, which cannot be enforced by filing a Constitutional petition.
11. Mr. Naim-ur-Rahman's next contention was that, after grant of approval by the respondent No,4 to the proposed alterations, the petitioners were deprived of parking and other facilities. Assuming that the contention was right, but if the proposed alterations did not offend against any law, rules or bye-laws applicable in the area, the respondent No,3 or 4 had no lawful excuse to withhold the approval. The respondent No,1 or 6 equally had a right to demand enforcement of their own rights.
Therefore, if the proposed alterations were permitted by law, as between the petitioners and the respondent No,3 or 4, there were no rights, even if the petitioners could be deprived of certain facilities by the permission granted by respondent No,3 or 4.
12. The third contention of Mr. Naimur Rehman was that no notice was received by the petitioners before sanction was granted to the revised building plan by respondent No,4. No doubt, the principles of natural justice requiring a hearing to be granted to a person before being condemned, applies not only to judicial but also quasi-judicial proceedings, provided that its application is not specifically excluded by the relevant Statute. According to a large number of cases, to which Mr. Naimur Rehman has referred, the principle embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem: "that no one can be condemned unheard" would be applicable even in cases where orders have been passed by Administrative Tribunals or Authorities affecting the rights of citizens in point of property etc. Even an omission from the relevant law of a provision for notice would not affect such right except, as pointed out earlier, in case of a specific provision made for exclusion of such notice. However, in the present case, as per the petitioners' own case, representations were already made to respondent No,4 in this regard specifying the consequences of the proposed alterations. Even a legal notice dated 18-5-1995 was sent to the said respondent in this regard on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners' view-point was not taken into consideration by the said respondent before sanctioning the revised building plan. The said respondent was already under an obligation to take into consideration all the relevant provisions of section 181 of the Cantonments Act, to which we have already referred, before according the said sanction. However, as was pointed out earlier, no right to receive such prior notice could be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of any privity existing between them and the Cantonment Board. Therefore, the respondent No,4 was under no legal obligation to serve notice upon the petitioners before sanctioning the said alterations. In any case, since such right has been claimed by the petitioners upon the general principle embodied in the said maxim, and not under a specific provision of any law, therefore, the requirements of law, if any, were satisfied when the petitioners themselves forwarded their representations to the respondent No,4. Therefore, the last contention of Mr. Naimur Rehman is also without force.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the two petitions were dismissed by a short order dated 22-5-1996 and the interim order granting status quo in the case was also vacated. All the miscellaneous applications pending for hearing stand disposed of.