1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner Abdul Qayoom son of Muhammad Mehfooz Qureshi has sought the following relief in capacity as pro bono publico:--
(a) To direct the respondents Nos.6 to 8 to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4, and respondent No.5 to maintain the residential status and character of the plots in question bearing C-550/18 and C- 550/19 situated at Minara Road, Sukkur.
(b) To direct the Government functionaries respondents Nos.6 to 8 to demolish the Kacha and temporary structure erected over said open plots in question being C.S. No.C-550/18 and C-550/19 without any approved building plan, and remove the Malbah of Oil Tanker and one petrol dispensing unit (pump), and iron sheets from the said residential plots.
(c) To direct the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur to cancel/withdraw the 'No Objection Certificate', issued vide No.JB/9, dated 3-1-2000 to Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd. for installation of Messrs HSD new Petrol Pump retail out let on Plot C.S. No.550/18 and C-550/19, situated at Minara Road, Sukkur, as the same has been obtained by the respondents Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd. on suppressing the original residential status of the plots for which said 'No-Objection Certificate' was issued.
(d) To direct the respondent Sukkur Municipal Corporation not to approve any building plan of Petrol Station on the said residential Plots C-550/18 and C-550/19 by the respondents Nos.1 to 6, except building plan for the residential purpose.
(e) To direct respondent No.4, the Chief Inspector of Explosive, Karachi, to cancel the licence No.Suk/5-P under Petroleum Rules, 1937 at Local Market Sukkur City, as the same has been obtained on the basis of the false documents, reports and affidavit annexed with the petition.
(f) To grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents Nos.1 to 6 not to raise or carry out any construction work over the said residential plots, bearing C.S. No.C-550/18, C-550/19, either directly or indirectly or in any other manner whatsoever. Also, further restrain the respondents Nos.6 to 8 not to approve the commercial building plan of Petrol Pump Messrs Shell Pakistan Limited on the said residential plots C-556/18 and C-550/19 or change the character and status of the said residential plots into commercial plots.
(g) To grant any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the public interest."
2. The facts as disclosed in the petition by the petitioner are that the respondents Nos.6 to 8 in connivance with respondents Nos.1 to 5 failed to perform their duties as contemplated under law.
3. They are extending benefits to the respondents Nos.1 to 5 "at the cost" (when the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to clarify about the words "at the cost" to the effect that what inference from these words could be drawn, but he failed to explain and satisfy) and irreparable loss to the public of Sukkur at large and so also residents of thickly populated area adjacent and around city Survey Nos.C-550/18 and C-550/19 of Sukkur City.
4. It is further stated that Sukkur Municipal Corporation leased out Plot No.9 admeasuring 3660 square feet out of city Survey No.C-550 situated in Ward-C, Minara Road, Sukkur Town to one Nasrullah Khan son of Khan Bahadur Agha Jan Muhammad Khan for residential purpose. The said Nasrullah Khan sold out plot to respondent No.5 on 31-8-1999. The respondent No.5 in collusion with respondents Nos.1 to 4 planned to instal Petrol Pump of Shell Pakistan Limited on the said plot. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 illegally obtained "No-Objection Certificate" from the District Magistrate who issued the same without completing the codal formalities with regard to the status of the plots.
5. According to the petitioner, installation of Petrol Pump in the residential area and issuance of "N.O.C." has no legal sanctity. The respondents Nos.1 to 5 after obtaining the said N.O.C., started construction/installation of the Petrol Pump on the site stated hereinabove.
6. It is further averred that the installation of the Petrol Pump would be hazardous to the public safety and it is in violation of the statutory provisions of law. Moreover it is urged in the petition that the installation of Petrol Pump has caused danger to the lives and property of the persons who are residing around the Petrol Pump.
7. Pusruant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 have filed comments wherein they have denied the allegations levelled against the respondents. The crux of the objections is that the petition has been filed malafidely in order to harass and mould the respondents for ulterior motive.
8. We have heard Mr. David Lawrence, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mannar Alam, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3, Mr. Gul Bahar Korai, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. S. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of respondents Nos.6 and 7 and Sardar Abdul Sattar Chohan learned counsel for respondent No.8.
9. We have also perused the material placed on the record by the parties.
10. It will be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow clause (a) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the convenience sake:-- "199. (1) Subject to the Constitution, .a High Court, may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--
(i) ...........................................................
11. The perusal of the above Article shows that only an "aggrieved person" whose rights have been infringed can file a writ petition except the writ of "habeas corpus" or of "quo warranto". It is well- settled that where any impugned order does not create any vested right in favour of the A petitioner, he would have no locus standi to challenge such order. The words "aggrieved party" or "person aggrieved" connotes that it does not really mean that a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other orders have been made. An "aggrieved person" must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision B has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something which he has a right to demand or wrongfully affected his title in something. In this context we are fortified by a D.B. decision in the case of Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Board of Revenue and others 1984 CLC 1146.
12. Admittedly the petitioner is resident of about 4 to 5 kilometres away from the place of the installed Petrol Pump and on the same road at the distance of about 150 yards petitioner himself is running a Petrol Pump of Pakistan State Oil. This fact is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner but has been rather admitted by him and is also borne out from the certified true copies of judgment in Suit No.36 of 1990 and Suit No.43 of 1990. The perusal of the record shows and as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the site in question is situated in an area where cinema, hotels, shopping centre are situated and many persons are residing, but none of the residents of the vicinity has come forward with the grievance before the concerned authorities or any Court that by the installation of the Pump at the site mentioned in the petition would be hazardous to their health and safety. On the contrary, the petitioner himself is running Petrol Pump of P.S.O. at some ditance from the disputed site. Prima facie it a, petitioner has filed the present petition due to professional jean some ulterior motive. So far the belated sanction of the plan is con can be termed as post de facto sanction, because the authorities cork, during the construction/installation of the Pump were in knowledge of ate same. Apart from that it is contemplated under section 35(3) of Sindh Local Government Ordinance that if a plan for approval is presented before the concerned authority and no decision is taken within sixty days, it will be deemed that the sanction has been accorded. There are also controversial facts. It is well-settled that controversies or disputed facts cannot be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
13. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the present petition is misconceived, resultantly, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the listed applications have become infructuous and stands disposed of.