1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The petitioner through this petition has sought a declaration to the effect that he was in lawful possession of Bungalow No,A-II, Doctor Colony Larkana with the prayer that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 be restrained not to dispossess him from the said bungalow except due course of law.
2. ' The facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner is serving as Senior Medical Officer in BPS-18 in C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana. He was allotted Bungalow No,A-II vide Order No, CMCH/El(PF)/ 614-17, dated 30-1-1999 and the same was in his possession. The petitioner is known patient of High Blood Pressure coupled with 1HD and is no medical leaves as per advice of doctor who have advised him to take complete bed rest. The respondent No,1 with some mala fide intention gave oral order to the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid Bungalow and report for his duty to the respondent No,4 but the petitioner refused to vacate the bungalow. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents Nos.1 to 4 in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana vide FC Suit No,24 of 2001 but although the said suit is pending adjudication in Civil Court, yet the respondents Nos.1 and 3 are bent upon to dispossess the petitioner. Hence this petition.
3. ' It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted a Bungalow in the year 1999 in a lawful manner and that he is a patient of high blood pressure that he has no alternate accommodation at Larkana and that ejecting him from the said Bungalow was in violation of ESTACODE and the service regulations.
4. ' Learned counsel was required to show the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this petition but he was unable to convince us.
5. ' Under Article 199 only a person whose rights have been infringed can file a petition, except a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of qua warranto which can be invoked by any person. The application under sub-Article (1)(a) can be moved by any "aggrieved party" while the application under sub- Article (1)(c) of Article 199 can be moved by any "aggrieved persons". A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision 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 order that a person be considered an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Article 199, he must show that his legal rights have been violated or that has been deprived of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that he seeks performance of the legal duty by the State functionaries and that the non performance of the duty is to result in loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege.
6. ' It is a fact borne out from the petition that while serving as Senior Medical Officer in Chandka Medical College Larkana, the petitioner was allotted a Bungalow wherein he was residing. Though it has not been specifically mentioned in the petition that the petitioner has been transferred but it is not difficult to ascertain from the contents of the petition that consequent upon his transfer the petitioner is on self-granted leave and desires to retain the possession of the official Bungalow.
7. From the perusal of the contents of the petition it is also crystal clear that the petitioner in the first instance has filed a suit being F.C. Suit No,24 of 2001 in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana for grant of same relief. He also moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
8. Alongwith the said suit. Though the petitioner has not clearly stated about the fate of the application for injunction and the learned counsel was seen mincing the words on this point, yet it will not be improbable to presume that after failing to obtain the orders of the injunction from the Civil Court the petitioner, on the same cause of action has filed the instant petition. It appears that the said suit is still pending adjudication in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana as evidently clear from para.No,12 of the petition. The petitioner cannot seek two remedies simultaneously viz (1) by filing a Civil Suit (2) by filing a Constitutional petition. Needless to mention here that the Constitutional jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction and neither the same can be exercised to perpetuate the ill-gotten benefits nor it can be invoked as an alternate or additional remedy. There can hardly be any doubt about the petitioner being a mere allottee/licensee. A licence or allotment of the quarter by the Government, by no stretch of imagination can be said to create a legal right or could be termed to be a vested right to bring the petitioner within the expression of an "aggrieved person" as contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution.
9. ' In view of the above discussion, we have no doubt that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, he has suppressed the material facts and that he has no locus standi to maintain this petition.
10. ' Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications. These are the reasons for our short order passed on 10-5-2001.