This common order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 657050of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 6576- of 1998 as question of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are agents of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd., and are holders of Extra---Departmental Public Call Office at Bahawalpur; petitioner No. 1 is running the E.D. P.C.O. Since 8-9-1993 while petitioner No. 2 since 16- 9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 6575 of 1998 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6576 of 1998 is holding E.D., P.C.O. Since 18-7-1995, under the agreement between the petitioners and the PTCL.
2-A. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 3 has issued order on 22nd of October; 1998 to the respondent No. 4 for sanction of E.D. P.C.O. In favour of private respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and the said sanction of E.D., P.C.O. In favour of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 has been given for the place which is located within distance of 500 metre from the E.D., P.C.O. Of the petitioners hence it is violative of the Policy as well as of the agreement entered into between the parties, therefore, the impugned order, dated 22nd of October, 1998 passed by respondent No. 3 be declared as illegal, void and without lawful authority.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were required to submit report and parawise comments and pursuant thereto, they have submitted reply raising preliminary objection. In response to notice to respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in C. M. For temporary relief, they have also entered appearance and duly represented by their learned counsel.
The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 has argued on the basis of report and parawise comments that the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 is that of agent and the Principal and further is based on agreement attached with this petition. It is well--- established law that the contractual obligations cannot be enforced through A Constitutional petition. In this respect, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments reported as Munir Gul and others v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Peshawar (1998 CLC 898), M/s. Momin Co. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca (PLD 1992 SC 108), Millat Tractors Employees Trust v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Lah. 68) and M/s. Sandal Fibres Limited v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Lah. 400).
The learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that Government of Pakistan has framed the policy keeping in view the interest of the public-at-large and sanctioned for installation of E.D., P.C.O. Within the distance of 500 metre, therefore, the Government has amended the policy guidelines regarding the provision for the installation of the E.D., P.C.O. Relied upon by the petitioners. In this respect, the learned counsel has placed on record copy of the amended guidelines which empowers the Minister for Communication to relax the criteria for installation of E.
D., P. C. O. And in this case, admittedly; the orders impugned have been passed by the Minister for Communication on the recommendation of the local M. N. A. And this was only provisional one.
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned orders have been passed in the interest of the public-at-large and not for the benefit of any individual, hence, taking into consideration the interest of the public-at-large and the fact that the petitioners have got no locus standi and the claimed rights of the petitioners are based on agreement which is not enforceable through Constitutional petition, therefore, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.