SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---By this petition leave is sought to file appeal against the judgment dated 4-9-1994 whereby Writ Petition No.4100 of 1994 filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to file such petition.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in t12e background are that the petitioner is Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan and the President of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group). Through M/s. Javed Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (respondent No.9) he imported MI-8 helicopter (Registration No.R.A-27692) on import --cum-re-export basis subject to certain conditions of providing a bank guarantee covering the value of the Helicopter and on the payment of import fee on refundable basis.
Formalities were completed including payment of custom duty by the petitioner, which was assessed over thirty lacs of rupees. Helicopter was grounded in February, 1994 as visa in favour of Russian crew was not extended under the orders of Interior Ministry. In the circumstances, writ petition mentioned above was filed in the High Court and during its pendency operation of the order impugned therein was stayed subject to furnishing of bank guarantee by respondent No.9.
Subsequently, Airline Licence of respondent No.9 was revoked. After completion of hearing, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not have any locus standi and that the Helicopter could not be registered and further that there was no licensed crew to fly the same, holding that no exception could be taken to the refusal by the Civil Aviation Authority (respondent No.5) to allow the operation/flying of the Helicopter.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the conclusion by the High Court that the petitioner did not have any locus standi is 'Contrary to what has been held by this Court in the case of Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust (PLD 1969 SC 223) and later reiterated in the cases of Muhammad Afzal v. Government of Pakistan (1987 SCM R 2078) and Abdur Rauf v.
Muhammad Iqbal (1991 SCM R 483). The petitioner has paid custom duty amounting to more than thirty lacs of rupees and hence has acquired financial interest in the Helicopter. If at all the petition had to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not have any locus standi. Then the High Court should not have gone into the merits of the case and made adverse comments.
There is enough material on the record to show that refusal by the official respondents to allow the Helicopter to fly is without legal justification smacking of mala fides on their part and showing political victimisation. Registration of the Helicopter has been refused on flimsy excuses which are not covered within the rules.
4. We issued notice to respondents Nos. l, 5 and 9 and heard in detail Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney-General for Ministry of Defence (respondent No. l) and the Civil Aviation Authority (respondent No.5). Syed Javed Iqbal, Managing Director of Javed Aviation Services (respondent No.9) was present in person.
5. Leave is granted to examine whether the impugned judgment is sustainable in law in view of the contentions raised above.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interim relief. Perusal of the record shows that though stay application has been filed but the same has not been registered and given any number and is not listed for hearing alongwith the main petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he would file application for interim relief separately in the office with some proposals for grant of interim relief and undertook to supply copy thereof to the learned Deputy Attorney-General for comments and seeking instructions.