1. ' Through this petition the petitioner who claims to be an Association of Sabzi and Fruit Commission Agent engaged in the trade of purchasing vegetable fruit and selling the same on commission has sought a declaration that the threatened action of respondents to shift the Sabzi and Fruit Mandi from its present place to Miro Khan Road is illegal ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction. As a corollary relief permanent injunction has also been prayed for.
2. ' The petitioners have stated that they are functioning under the provisions of Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939 and are opposed to the shifting of Sabzi Mandi to the proposed site which according to them was a deserted area having no roads of approach water, severage, electricity and other facilities. It was accordingly alleged that the shifting of the petitioner from the present premises to the proposed site in the circumstances would deprive the members of the petitioners of their right of lawful trade and livelihood to which they are by Constitution and other laws, entitled to.
3. ' Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents and para wise comments were filed on behalf of respondents. It was stated that 73 Fruit and Vegetable and Commission Agents have obtained licence from the Market Committee Larkana. It was further stated that five acres land was provided by Municipal Corporation Larkana to the Fruit/Vegetable Commission Agent out of which two acres area has been encroached upon unlawfully by some of the petitioners and about three acres was used for Trade and Fruit/Vegetable Commission Agents in which 60 shops are allotted by Municipal Corporation. It was derived that necessary facilities were not provided. It was asserted that new premises will provide far better and more business facilities to every one. Apart from raising other controversial pleas, respondent No,1 raised a plea that the Association was not registered according to law and therefore the petition was not maintainable.
4. ' We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional A.G. For respondent No,4. Learned counsel for petitioner on enquiry candidly stated before us that the petitioner was not registered under any law. He however, stated before us that the petitioner was struggling for the welfare of the Fruit and Commission Agents and therefore has locus standi to maintain this petition.
5. ' The preliminary point for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner is an "aggrieved person" or an "aggrieved party" having the locus standi to maintain this petition.
6. 'Article 199 provides for remedy for the infringement of a fundamental or legal right of a person/party. The condition precedent to the granting of any relief under Article 199 depends on existence of a fundamental or legal right of a person or a party and the infringement of such a right.
7. ' The right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 is a personal and individual right. Such right may be a statutory right or a right recognized by the law. A person or a party can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by .Some one who has a legal duty to perform relating to that right.
8. ' This view was taken by Honourable Supreme Court in a case of Tariq Transport Company reported in PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437 and it was held as under: ' In a petition for writ the first question that the Court has to consider is whether the petitioner has the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, and it is a basic principle that a person seeking judicial review of administrative or quasi-judicial action must show that he has a direct personal interest in the act.
9. ' In the case of Jalaluddin reported in 1968 SCM R 995. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that a writ petition can be filed only by a person aggrieved and as such relief granted must be in relation to his grievance and not grievance of any third person.
10. ' In the case of Anjuman Araian Bhera reported in PLD 1973 Lah. 500 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while discussing the same issue observed that the petition under Article 98 (Constitution 1962) could be tiled by an aggrieved party and by "party", it means one who is competent to maintain an action. It was further held that the writ petition could be tiled either by a person. a number of persons, a corporate body or a firm. Thus it was held in the said authority that the petitioner which was an unregistered organization was not competent to maintain the petition.
11. ' It is an admitted position that in case Sabzi Mandi and Fruit Mandi is shifted from its present place to Miro Khan Road as alleged in the petition, the persons/parties who are likely to be effected will be the commission agents in their individual capacity. No infringement of any of the legal right of the petitioner which is an unregistered body will take place, as the petitioner Association has got no any direct personal interest in the matter. In this view of the matter reliance can be placed on a Division Bench authority of Dacca High Court in the case of Haji Mojakkir Ali reported in PLD 1967 Dacca 6 wherein following observation was made: ' Here in this case it is not alleged that the petitioner being an Association has got any direct personal interest in the impugned order of the R.T.A. It is also obvious from what has been stated in the petition that the petitioner has no such interest.
12. ' In the case reported in 1987 CLC 2154 (Pakistan Diplomat Engineers Federation) in which a society registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 filed a petition under Article 199 on behalf of its members, impugning order of Government concerning terms and conditions of its members it was held that since no rights of the petitioner's society were infringed therefore the society was not an aggrieved person. In the above cited case it was held that grievance complained of must in effect entail a direct injury to petitioner to make him an aggrieved party.
13. ' A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Korangi No,2 Falahi Committee v.. Karachi Development Authority (Regd.) and another reported in 1982 CLC 587 has observed as under:--- ' The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has raised the plea that the plot allotted to, the respondent No,3 =was an amenity plot and could not have been allotted to the respondent No,3. The petitioner when questioned about the locus standi of the petitioners as to how they were aggrieved party, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were an association of the residents of the locality founded for the sole object to help the residents of the said area in their petty problems which might arise in the locality. It is obvious that this does not confer any justifiable or legal right upon the petitioners to file this petition and they cannot be treated as an aggrieved party.
14. ' From the facts and circumstances of the present case it is evidently clear that the petitioner's association has no legal right and even if the Sabzi Mandl is transferred to another place none of the rights of the present petitioner will be infringed in any manner.
15. ' Being fortified by the case-law referred hereinabove, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner having no personal legal right was not an aggrieved person/party, thus was not competent to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to maintain this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any law to justify the maintainability of this petition.
16. ' Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application. These are the reasons for our short order passed on 17-5-2001.