1. MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioners are aggrieved because, according to them, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have failed to stop conversion of open space meant for car parking into shops in the new building proposed to be constructed by respondent No.5. The only document upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is the letter addressed to respondent No.5 by respondent No.3, informing him that approval had been accorded for the proposed construction by' the said respondent. The letter indicates that one of the conditions for grant of the approval was that a car harking space was to be left out and was not to be converted into shops or utilised for any other purpose.
2. Although notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No.3, but, today when the case has been called, none appeared on behalf of the said respondent. The said respondent has also failed to file any comments in respect of the allegation that it has failed to enforce the conditions imposed by itself and allowed respondent No.5 to convert car parking space into shops. We would like to point out that notwithstanding the fact that do comments have yet been filed by the said respondent nor anyone has appeared before this Court oil behalf of the said respondent, but since, evidently, this was a condition imposed by the said respondent itself and the said respondent has not taken notice of its violation, (if any) the matter now is between the petitioner and the said respondent.
3. Unless it has been shown by the petitioners that such a condition was imposed in accordance with some law or rules or regulations applicable in this regard, there would be no ground for interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard has only referred to section 178-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which provides as follows:--- " 178-A. Sanction for building.--No person shall erect or re-erect a building on any land in a cantonment, except with the previous sanction of the Board, nor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the rules and bye-laws made under this Act relating:, to the erection and re-erection of buildings."
4. As would appear form the above section, it imposes restrictions in respect of erection or re-erction of a building on any land in a cantonment area except with the previous sanction of the Board or otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X1 in the said Act or the rules and bye- laws made under the said Act relating to the erection and re-erection of buildings. The said provision is, therefore, a provision of general nature and nothing can be spelt out therefrom to indicate that any such restrictions have been imposed either by any law or any rules or regulations etc. In respect of making compulsory provision for car parking space in any building for which sanction has been granted by respondent No.2. Unless it is shown that the respondent No.5 has violated any condition imposed by law or that respondent No.2 has failed to ensure compliance of such condition which under tile law it is bound to enforce, interference will not be called for by this Court. The mere fact that a condition imposed by respondent No.2 has not been complied with by respondent No.5, would leave the matter to be decided by the two respondents. Since, as we have pointed out earlier, no such objection appears to have been raised in regard to the alleged violation by respondent No.2, no case for interference by its has been .Made out.
5. The second grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the respondent No.4 who, according to the petitioners, has been posted as S.H.O., Police Station Defence, Karachi.
6. It appears that the petitioner had a dispute with respondent No.5 in regard to the alleged conversion of the car parking space but respondent No.4 declined to take any action in the matter.
7. We would like :o point out that Criminal Procedure Code and Pakistan Penal Code provide for a complete machinery in case an offence is committed. In case respondent No.5 has committed any offence then, unless it is a cognizable offence, the said respondent cannot be arrested by the police. Without commenting further, we would like to point out that in case the petitioners arc aggrieved on account of failure of the police to register a case, the petitioners can always file a private complaint before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh; who is present in Court, has given an undertaking on behalf of the said respondent that law and order would be maintained by the said respondent. This, according to us, should satisfy the petitioners.