' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---These are three connected appeals with the leave of this Court against two orders dated 27-2-1998 and 10-3-1998 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. The High Court of Sindh received a fax message which was registered as Constitution Petition No,D-160 of 1998 under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), and after that the above two orders were passed. By the former order notices were issued to the Secretary, Housing and Town Planning, the Managing Director, K.E.S.C., the Administrator, K.M.C., and the Managing Director, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board with the direction to submit comments as to the unauthorised raising of the multi-storeyed structures on residential plots in violation of the rules and laws referred to in sub-para. 2 of the said order. It was also ordered that it would be ensured that all encroachments in the area, by whatever means brought about, should be removed, sewerage leakages would be immediately attended to and removed, ditches should be filled by concrete, electric supply problems would be solved and sorted out and the water scarcity would be looked after. The Nazir of the High Court was also appointed as Commissioner to inspect the entire area after five days within which period needful should have been done. The Karachi Building Control. Authority (hereinafter referred to as the K.B.C.A) was also directed to inform the K.E.S.C, Sui Southern Gas Company and the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (K.W.S.B.) in relation to such offending buildings to forthwith discontinue the amenities provided by these agencies to them. The K.B.C.A. Was also authorised to seek due assistance from the I.-G., Sindh, the Commissioner, Karachi and the District Magistrate concerned.
2. The matter again came up for hearing before the same learned Division Bench on 10-3-1998, when it was noted that certain actions were taken by the officials concerned pursuant to the above earlier order. The submission of the parties were noted and the matter was put off to 19-3-1998.
3. The appellants in the above three appeals, who claimed to be in possession of certain portions of buildings bearing No, G.R.E. 338, G.R.E. 360, G.R.,E. 361/2, G.R.E 539, G.R.E. 540, G.R.E. 552 and J.M. 674, approached this Court through petitions for leave to appeal, which were granted to examine the following contentions: "The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the aforesaid order was passed by a learned Division Bench without hearing the concerned parties. It is also contended by the petitioners jointly, that in the fax message which was converted into writ petition by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh, the only complainant was regarding illegal construction of buildings but the Division Bench passed orders directing the agencies rendering utility services to various buildings in Karachi to disconnect Water, Sui Gas and Electricity provided to them. This order has affected large number of buildings in Karachi whose occupants were condemned unheard. Apart from it, it is jointly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an order of such a magnitude could not have been passed at an interim stage which deprived a large number of people from enjoying the utility services which they had enjoyed for years together. It is also contended that the learned Division Bench had no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a request of this kind and to pass an order of such a high magnitude without hearing the affected parties."
' The interim order was also granted to the extent of suspending the direction of the High Court regarding disconnection of the utility services, namely, supply of Water, Sui Gas and Electricity, in respect of the buildings which were the subject-matter of the above petitions.
4. We have heard M/s. Abdul Rahim Kazi, Zafar Hadi Shah and Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellants and M/s. Latifur Rehman and A.R. Akhtar for respondents 1, 2 and 3, and respondents Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11 and 14 in person.
5. The private respondents have placed on record a report dated 9-3-1998 of the Nazir of the High Court, which inter alia indicates that at the relevant time nobody had occupied the above buildings. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants the following was the alleged position.
(1) Civil appeal No,884 of 1998: ' This appeal covers property bearing No,G.R.E. 361/2. According to the official respondents, the original approved plan was for Ground-plus-One floor but actually Ground-plus-Five floors were contructed. According to Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the above appellants ten of the flats are occupied by the appellants.
(2) Civil Appeal No,885 of 1998: ' This appeal covers five buildings the position of which is as under:
(a) G.R.E. 338 The approved plan was for Ground-plus-One, but actually constructed Ground-plus-Six floors.
' According to Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah, six of the flats are occupied by the appellants.
(b) G.R.E. 360 ' The approved plan was for Ground-plus-Four but actually constructed Ground-plus-Six floors as per respondents concerned. According to Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah, four flats are occupied by the appellants.
(c) G.R.E. 539 ' The approved plan was for Ground-plus-One but actually constructed Ground-plus-Six as per respondents concerned. According to Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah, four flats are occupied by the appellants.
(d) G.R.E. 540 ' The approved plan was Ground-plus-One but actually constructed Ground-plus-Five as per official respondents concerned. According to MT. Zafar Hadi Shah, five flats are occupied by the appellants.
(e) J.M. 674 ' The approved plan was for Ground-plus-Three but actually constructed Ground-plus-Five as per respondents concerned. According to Mr. Zafar Hadi Shah, two of the flats are occupied.
(3) Civil Appeal No,886 of 1998: ' The subject-matter of this appeal is G.R.E.
552. The approved plan was for Ground-plus-One but actually constructed Ground-plus-Six as per respondents concerned. According to Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellants forty-one flats are occupied.
6. Since, according to the above report of the Nazir none of the above seven buildings which are the subject-matter of the above appeals was occupied on the relevant date, in our view, it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the above interlocutory orders, as admittedly unauthorised constructions have been raised in respect of the above buildings. It would have, been more appropriate for the appellants to have approached the High Court by filing Miscellaneous Applications in the above pending Constitution Petition which has been registered on the basis of the fax message under Article 199 of the Constitution, in order to demonstrate that the above report of the Nazir does not reflect the correct position and that their amenities were ordered to be disconnected without hearing them.
7. We may point out that unfortunately it has become common practice in Karachi that some builders obtain approval of plans for raising buildings Ground-plus-One, but actually they construct multi-storeyed high-rise buildings on the sites to the detriment of the neighbours in the locality concerned as it disturbs the amenities besides creating environmental problems. Such practice is to be depreciated as was pointed out in the judgment of this Court in Abdul Razak v.
Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PLD 1994 SC 512). It may further be observed that some builders raise unauthorised constructions after obtaining status quo orders from the Courts.
8. Since the question: as to whether factually the appellants were in possession of the above flats on the relevant date, is not free from doubt, we recall the leave granting order and dismiss the above appeals with no order as to costs.
9. The question as to whether the High Court can register a Constitution Petition suo motu under Article 199 of the Constitution will be decided in an appropriate case. Before concluding this judgment we may record that the learned counsel for the appellants had requested that it may be ordered that the amenities, namely, supply of water, electricity and gas should not be ,disconnected till the disposal of the above Constitution petition by the High Court. We are not inclined to pass any such interlocutory order. However, it will be open to the appellants to file appropriate application for the above relief before the High Court in the above pending Constitution petition. These are reasons of the short order of even date.