1. ' By this Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the petitioner has sought following relief: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to get the house of petitioner vacated which has been occupied illegally by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 personnels.
2. ' Further be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to remove the police chowki from the nearby house of the petitioner.
3. Pass any further or grant relief to the petitioner."
3. ' The brief facts as disclosed in the petition are that petitioner purchased a house admeasuring 80 Sq. Yards bearing No,9, Block 5, Category-8 situated at Metroville-I S.I.T.E. Karachi in the year 1996 from one Mst. Iqbal Begum and got the same transferred in his name from respondent No,5 K.D.A.
4. In January, 1996. It was purchased by petitioner for his and his family's personal bona fide use and occupation. At present petitioner is staying in a rented house.
5. ' It is further stated that when petitioner went to occupy the said house, he found that it was already occupied by the policemen of Police Station Peerabad illegally without any intimation to the petitioner.
6. ' The petitioner approached the higher authorities i,e, respondents Nos.1 to 5 but they paid no heed to it and premises in question are still in use and occupation of the personnel of the Police Station Peerabad Karachi West.
7. ' The petitioner also filed Application No, 4481of 1999 in April, 1999 before the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court, Sindh on administrative side for possession of the house from police. The Honourable Chief Justice sent it to M.I.T. For issuing notice to S.S.P., West Karachi. Inspite of the issuance of three reminders the S.S.P., West Karachi did not even send acknowledgement of the said notice.
8. ' It is averred that the police did not only occupy the house but they also erected a Police Chowki (police kiosk) which is a nuisance for the petitioner and neighbour. The police also caused damage to the house of the petitioner. The respondent No,1 also wrote a letter to the respondent No, 5 K.D.A.
9. In reply to the letter of respondent No,1 it was confirmed by the respondent No,5 that the disputed house stands in the name of petitioner.
10. ' The respondent No,2 in his comments stated that the disputed premises were constructed by K.D.A. As a model house and the same is in occupation of police department since 1985-86 and it is being used as police post of Police Station Mominabad Karachi. The K.D.A. Had also constructed a police post outside the disputed house and possession thereof was handed over to police department by K.D.A. Authorities vide Letter No, EE/NND -I/KDA/MNS/99 1124. As per transfer letter petitioners' predecessor-ininterest was allotted only a plot admeasuring 80 Sq. Yds. And not a constructed house. The disputed house is in possession of police department since last many years and prior to its allotment no notice was given by K.D.A. Or any person to the police department and the disputed premises are in uninterrupted use and occupation of police department prior to its purchase by the petitioner.
11. ' It is further stated that police department has not errected/constructed any police 'Chowki' (kiosk) but it was constructed by KDA after completing the codal formalities and possession whereof was handed over by them to police department. No nuisance was caused by police to Mohallah People.
12. No such complaint ever was made by them to any authority. On the contrary the police is providing protection to law abiding citizens from criminals, terrorists and anti-social elements. The disputed house is in original position and no damage was caused .To it by the police.
13. ' The respondent No,5 stated in the comments that the house in dispute was transferred to petitioner vide Letter No, 215, dated 31-1-1996 after completing all the codal formalities and after recovery of necessary fee permissible under law. The possession of the plot was handed over to predecessor-ininterest (original allottee) Mst. Iqbal Begum by Executive Engineer K.D.A. On 31-8- 1995. It was the responsibility of allottee to have taken care of the plot.
14. ' I have heard Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S. Muzaffar Imam learned counsel for respondent No,5 and Mr. Muhammad Saleh Panhwar learned counsel for the A.-G. For State. Both the learned counsel for State and for respondent No,5 challenged the maintainability of this petition. I have also perused the material placed on record.
15. It is well-settled that the Constitutional jurisdiction is purely discretionary and discretion cannot be exercised as a matter of course but it is to be exercised with great care and caution. The power under Article 199 of the Constitution is not intended for deciding the disputed questions of fact and thwart the procedural law. The Article 199 of the Constitution lays down that subject to the Constitution if this Court is satisfied that no other adequate or efficacious remedy is provided under law then this Court can issue appropriate writ directing performance of anything which is required by law and pass orders restraining doing for anything which is not permitted by law or is contrary to law and this Court could also declare any act to be of no legal effect being unlawful.
16. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked in this case as the petitioner has got another adequate and efficacious remedy by way of appropriate proceedings before a forum provided under law.
17. ' In taking the above view, I am fortified by the decisions in the cases of Hassan Din Chishti v. Chief Engineer, WAPDA 1997 SCMR 51, Wasimul Haque v. Government of Sindh PLD 1975 Karachi-1 and Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1997 Karachi 600).
18. ' Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. ' By my short order dated 8-11-1999 the present petition was dismissed and above are the detailed reasons for passing of the said short order.