1. ' S.A. RABBANI, J.--- 1. For Katcha Peshi.
2. ' Petitioners filed this Constitution petition in the public interest, invoking jurisdiction of this Court given by Article 199 of the Constitution, to prevent alleged illegal construction on Plot No,2A/SR13, Sirai Quarters, Karachi.
3. ' Mr. Naimur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted the facts according to which he considers that the acts of the respondents in respect of the said construction are in violation of law.
4. He also submitted arguments and case-law in support of his contention regarding legal validity of a public interest litigation.
5. ' The record shows that an objection was raised about maintainability of the petition and the point was heard and decided by another Bench of this Court. After detailed examination about the maintainability of the petition, the said Bench held, on 25-7-2001, that the petition was maintainable, and directed that it should be fixed for hearing. It clearly means that the petition was admitted for regular hearing, and the Katcha Peshi stage was over. The office has wrongly fixed, it again for Katcha Peshi. Since the petition has already been admitted, no further order is needed for admission.
6. ' 2 and 3 Miscellaneous Nos.974 of 2001 and 984 of 2001 ' These two applications have been filed on behalf of seven persons, who claim rights and interest in various portions of the property in dispute. To defend their rights and interest, they seek their joinder as respondent in the petition. The applications have been made under Order I, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code.
7. ' Mr. Naimur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioners, resisted joinder of these intervenors, and submitted that they have not acquired legal possession as the legality of the occupancy depended upon the occupancy certificate to be issued under section 6(2) of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 and this certificate has not been issued.
8. ' Mr. Ali Bin Adam, Jafri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of K.B.C.A., also relied upon this provision to oppose joinder of the intervenors.
9. ' Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned counsel appearing for the proposed intervenors in Miscellaneous No,984 of 2001, submitted that they are transferees of the property, acquiring rights under a registered deed, and they should have a right to defend their interest in the property. The intervenors, who made Application No,974 of 2001, also claimed to have purchased portions in the property in dispute and Mr. Arif Khilji, appearing for them, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Advocate.
10. A careful perusal of clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution will reveal that, in the strict sense of the provision, only an aggrieved party and the official person, whose orders or actions are challenged, are A parties to a Constitutional petition. However, since the scope of the definition of "aggrieved person" has been enlarged to accommodate B public interest litigation, the private parties, whose rights and interest are involved in the dispute, cannot be deprived of an opportunity to defend their interest and rights. Although Order I, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code has no applicability to Constitutional petition as such, the intervenors are entitled to join these proceedings to defend their interest as their alleged rights and interest are more relevant for the purpose than the rights and interest claimed by the petitioners.
11. ' The record shows that the Advocates for the proposed interveners were heard in this case on the question of maintainability of the petition. There is no reason why they should be debarred, now, from further contesting the matter. The applications are allowed in the interest of justice. The names of the intervenors be added in the petition.
4. Miscellaneous No,541 of 2001 ' Through this application, filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The petitioners seek to restrain various respondents from various acts. They seek a direction to respondent No,10, viz. Multiline Estate, Saima Trade Tower, private builders, restraining them from raising further construction and transferring, selling, etc. The property.
12. An interim order in the Constitutional petition is to be passed in exercise of jurisdiction given by Article 199 of the Constitution itself, D and not under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code.
13. It can be seen, in the Article itself, that the High Court has powers to make interim orders in exercise of this jurisdiction. This Article expressly mentions the categories of the persons to whom a direction can be made in exercise of provisions of this Article. They in chide persons, performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. A builder, in a private business, is not a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. No direction to, or order against, a private person can, therefore, be made in a Constitution petition.
14. ' The petitioners seek a direction to Karachi Building Control Authority and the Province of Sindh, not to allow any alteration in the approved plan or to regularize the construction or issuing any revised certificate or permission relating to sale or occupation of any portion of the building.
15. A direction under this Constitutional provision can be issued to an official respondent to do what the law requires him to do, or F to refrain from doing what is against law. At this stage, no final finding can be given that alteration in the approved plan regularization of the construction or issuance of certificate or permission in respect of sale or occupation, is against law. No such direction can, therefore, be issued at this stage. These are the points that can only be decided at the final stage.
16. ' Similarly, the petitioners seek a direction to respondents Nos.6 to 9, viz. K.E.S.C. Sui Gas Company, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and P.T.C.L. To refrain from providing any utility connection in the building. For such direction also, this is not the proper stage and it has not been shown that providing such connection is violation of any specific legal provision. It is for these authorities to see that, if a connection is provided by them, it is in accordance with law.
17. ' The petitioners further seek a direction to Sindh Board of Revenue, restraining it from issuing any lease or sub-lease of the plot. Neither it has been shown that any such lease or sub-lease is being issued nor the legal provision that is violated by such issuance.
18. Petitioners further seek sealing of the non-occupied area of the building. This is also beyond the scope of jurisdiction given by l' Article 199 of the Constitution.
19. ' There is, thus, no case for an interim order sought by the petitioners. The proper course would be early hearing and disposal of the petition. Miscellaneous No,541 of 2001 is dismissed.