1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated, 22-1-2002 whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed I.C.A. No,453 of 1997 filed by the petitioner upholding the determination of the learned Single Judge whereby WritPetition No,18723 of 1996 filed by respondent No,1 was accepted through judgment, dated 16-5-1997.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner purchased a Plot bearing No,109-A, Garden Block, New Garden Town, Lahore, whereas respondent No,1 was already living in the adjoining Property bearing No,109, Garden Block, New Garden Town, alongwith her family members. The petitioner converted his residential house into a commercial concern by opening a gymnasium, scotch courts and swimming pool in clear violation of the law and the regulations of the Lahore Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the L.D.A. In this background it would be necessary to give some detail of the different directives issued from time to time by the Chief Executive/Chief Minister of the Province. First in line is a directive issued by him on 5-7-1993 which is in the following terms:-- "Subject: USE OF THE HOUSE FOR PROFESSIONAL-CUMRESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
3. ' On presentation of the enclosed application, Chief Minister has been pleased to desire that Residence No,109-A, Garden Block, Garden Town, Lahore should not be treated as Commercial Unit as it is a Health Clinic and that it should be treated at par with Doctor's Clinic because operation of the house has also been used for residential purposes.
4. ' Further necessary action may be taken accordingly."
5. ' It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner also started a similar concern under the name of Bodytalk Health Clinics at 13-K, Gulberg-II, Lahore. Accordingly, respondent No,3 issued order on 27- 10-1993 in view of the directive issued by the Chief Minister's Secretariat allowing the petitioner to run Body talk Health Clinic at 109-A, Garden Block, New Garden Town, Lahore, as well. The said order reads as under:- ' "Subject: USE OF THE HOUSE FOR PROFESSIONAL-CUMRESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
6. ' Please refer to the Directive No,SO-111-CMS-OT-176/93-1159- 2482, dated 29-11-1993 from Chief Minister's Secretariat.
7. ' The Director-General, LDA has been pleased to allow you half of the floor area of each building on Plot No,13-K Gulberg-II and Plot No,109-A, Garden Block, New Garden Town for running Body talk Health Clinics. The remaining half of the each building shall, however, be used for residential purposes. As per your undertaking if at any time any violation is found the permission will be withdrawn."
8. ' However, the Chief Minister's Inspection Team as well as the residents of the area objected to the above use of the property in violation of the rules and regulations, whereupon on 30-8-1994 the earlier permission granted to the petitioner on 27-12-1993 was withdrawn. The above order, dated 30-8-1994 reads as follows:-- ' "Subject: USE OF THE HOUSE FOR PROFESSIONAL-CUMRESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
9. ' Please refer to this office letter No,1886, dated 27-12-1993 regarding the subject cited above.
10. ' It is to inform you that the permission granted to you for use of houses on Plot No,13-K, Gulberg-II and 109-A, Garden Block, New Garden Town, Lahore, for professional-cum-residential purposes has been withdrawn by the orders of the Director-General, LDA.
11. ' You are therefore, advised, either to restore the two premises to their permissible use i.e, purely residential or to get these properties commercialized after provision of NOCs from the adjoining neighbours and on payment of commercialization fee, as per policy."
12. ' Thereafter the petitioner again by exercising his influence and contacts managed in securing another directive from the Chief Minister on 5-10-1994 restoring the permission and the earlier order of use of the property as Bodytalk Health Clinics was directed to be withdrawn. The same reads as under:- ' "Subject: USE OF THE HOUSE FOR PROFESSIONAL-CUMRESIDENTIAL PURPOSE.
13. ' On presentation of enclosed application of Mr. Khalid Saeed, Chief Executive (Bodytalk), National Society of Sports Medicines Pakistan, Chief Minister has been pleased to restore the permission earlier granted on the following grounds:--
(i) Permission has been revoked with notice:
(ii) He is very much at par with other professionals.
(iii) Such action should have been withdrawn by bringing it into prior notice of Chairman, LDA/Chief Minister as, initial permission was approved by the Chief Minister/Chairman, LDA.
14. ' Further necessary action may kindly be taken accordingly, mean all punitive action be withdrawn deferred."
15. ' Thereafter, respondent No,2 issued an order, dated 20-12-1994 in view of the directive of the Chief Minister allowing the petitioner to use both the above places i.e, 13-K Gulberg-II as well as 109-A, Garden Block, New Garden Town, as gymnasium and sports health clinics.. This order reads as follows:-- ' "Reference Chief Minister's Directive No,US-III-CMS-OT-76/94-4262-45589, dated 5-10-1994 and No, US-III-CMS-OT1.76/94-15660, dated 9-10-1994.
16. ' The D.G., LDA in relaxation of LDA's Building Regulations, 1984, has allowed you to use the above said properties for running Health Clinics as detailed below:---
(i) A portion of house on Property No,15-K presently on rent with you will be used as Building and Fitness Gymnasium for a period of only five years. No further extension will be allowed.
(ii) At present more than 50% of the Property No,109-A, Garden Block, Garden Town is being' used as Gymnasium and Sports Health Clinic. As soon as the construction of the building is completed, you will be allowed only to use half of the house area as per clause (51) of Building Regulations, whereas the rest of the area will be used for purely residential purposes.
17. ' In case of any violation of the above relaxation the permission will be withdrawn without any notice to you and legal action as provided under LDA Act, 1975 will be taken."
18. ' Faced with these situations, respondent No,1 filed a civil suit on 1-1-1996 for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner from raising construction in violation of law, Rules and the Building Regulations.
19. ' Thereafter, when the authorities noticed the illegal construction and the illegal activities being carried on by the petitioner at the disputed place under the garb of gymnasium and swimming pools, they took serious notice of the same and even, as reflected from the impugned judgments, as a case was got registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,113 of 1996 on 14-6-1996 at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore, under section 294, P.P.C. Wherein he was involved in kissing and hugging a lady in the open. He, however, was acquitted subsequently from this charge.
20. ' While the above suit was in progress, the Chief Minister Secretariat issued another directive on 16- 6-1996 directing the L.D.A. To withdraw the permission earlier granted to the petitioner as the same was secured by him through concealment of facts. Consequent thereto, respondent No,2 through an order dated 18-6-1996 withdrew the earlier letter, dated 20-12-1994 whereby permission was granted to the petitioner. The said letter reads as under:-- ' "Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF PERMISSION FOR BODY TALK CLINIC GRANTED UNDER CLAUSE 1 OF THE BUILDING REGULATION, 1984.
21. ' On receipt of a complaint, Chief Minister, Punjab has ordered for the withdrawal of permission granted to you for running the Health Clinic.
22. ' It is therefore, regretted to inform you that permission granted under section 151, LDA Building Regulations communicated to you vide this Office Letter No,TP-Misc. 2029/1109, dated 2012-1994 is hereby withdrawn with immediate effect."
23. ' However, the petitioner on coming to know about the withdrawal of the permission, filed Writ Petition No, 10115 of 1996 in the Lahore. High Court against the L.D.A. Authorities as well as respondent No,
1. The LDA filed parawise comments contesting the claim of the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner again succeeded in securing a directive from the Chief Minister on 2-10-1996 whereby the earlier directive, dated 16-6-1996 was ordered to be withdrawn. The said directive is in the following terms:- ' "WITHDRAWAL OF PERMISSION OF COMMERCIALIZATION EXTRACTED THROUGH CONCEALMENT OF FACTS BY OWNER OF BODY TALK.
24. ' Chief Minister has been pleased to approve the withdrawal of Directive No,US II (CMS) AB-18/96- 1996, dated 16-6-1996 (copy enclosed) on the aforementioned subject. Action taken may please be intimated accordingly."
25. ' On securing the above directive, the petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No,10115 of 1996 filed by him.
26. ' The above repeated directives issued by the Chief Minister Secretariat forced respondent No,1 to file Writ Petition No,18723 of 1996 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 16-10-1996 taking exception to the directives, dated 5-7-1993, 5-10-1994, 16-6-1996 and 2-10-1996 being illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same were issued in an arbitrary manner in clear violation of Law and Regulations of L.D.A. The petitioner filed parawise comments to the same and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. However, the L.D.A. Supported respondent No,1 stating that the permission earlier granted had since been withdrawn. Further, the Authority had no intention to allow the use of premises for any other purpose other than residential and would follow the Regulations strictly. A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the above writ petition through his judgment, dated 16-5-1997. The above judgment was assailed by the petitioner through I.C.A. No,453 of 1997, which has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court through the judgment, dated 22-1-2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
27. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material placed on record with their assistance. The core issue in this case is, whether the petitioner has got any right to run a gymnasium, squash courts and a swimming pool as a business/profession under the name of Health Clinic in a residential area. To resolve this controversy, it would be appropriate to state the purposes for which the LDA was established. An Act known as The Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (Punjab Act XXX of 1975), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was promulgated on 3-4-1975), with a laudable object to improve the quality of life in metropolitan area of Lahore City by providing planned development through evolving such policies which would improve the environmental conditions in all facets of life. Section 45 of the Act authorized the L.D.A. Authorities to make Regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. On the strength of Act, L.D.A. Framed Building Regulations which were promulgated on 14-11-1984. Regulation 17 thereof provided as under:-- "17. Use of land/building.-No land or building shall be used in a manner inconsistent with the use prescribed in any approved scheme or the Master Plan as the case may be."
28. ' However, exception to the same has been provided in Regulation 51 wherein non-residential use of the property residential area can be allowed provided the residents thereof satisfy the pre- conditions of Regulation 51, which are in the following terms:-- "51. Non-residential use.-Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 17, a Housing Unit may include a part, not exceeding 1/2 of its floor area, to be used as office associated with the resident's profession e.g. a doctor's clinic or office, lawyer's office or technical consultant's office etc."
29. A reading of the above Regulation ns demonstrates that in a residential area the properties can only be utilized for no purpose other than the residential one as it would be inconsistent with the approved scheme or the master plan. However, as already stated, Regulation 51 has created an exception and in a residential area, the property may be utilized otherwise provided the following three conditions are satisfied:--
(i) to be used as office;
(ii) such an office must be associated with resident's profession;
(iii) that such a person falls within the category mentioned in the latter part of the Regulations e.g. a doctor's clinic or office etc. ' It is not denied that this benefit/concession, according to the above Regulation, apart from doctors, lawyers and technical consultants may also be extended to some other category but the aforesaid three conditions must have to be satisfied. A resident of the residential area can utilize his property as an office of his own vocation after securing proper permission from the LDA. If he satisfies the above three conditions he may be allowed to set up an office but by no stretch of imagination a gymnasium, squash courts and swimming pool for general public be allowed in a residential property.
30. ' We have also noticed that the petitioner is not a 'professional' so as to take the benefit of Regulation 51. The learned Judges of the Single Bench as well as Division Bench have taken pains after discussing exhaustively the entire case-law and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner, on the basis of his qualification, which is B.A., 3rd Division from the Punjab University, alongwith certain certificates of attendance of short courses on sports, medicine and nutrition, duration of which was from one day to a week, cannot be termed as a 'professional' so as to allow him to convert his residential place into a gymnasium, squash courts and swimming pool inviting the customers to take benefit of these utilities and run the same on commercial basis. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Division Bench in this regard, which is in the following terms:-- "7. The word 'profession' and/or 'professional' has not been defined either in LDA Act, 1975, or in Building Regulations, 1984. The learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the aforenoted judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ehsan-ul-Haq Piracha and Engr.
31. Iqbal Zafar Jhangra's cases, supra, has tried to import the definition of `professional', as given in Article 5(i)(a)(iv) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977, President's (Post-Proclamation) Order V of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) in this case.
32. We find ourselves unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel, as the definitions given in the order cannot be read into these regulations, as the object and scope of the two enactments are different. It has been held in Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, N.A. 158, Naushero Feroze and others (1994 SCMR 1299) that it is not safe to pronounce judgment on the basis of provisions of one Act with reference to the decision dealing with the other Acts which are not pari materia. Furthermore, the definition of `professional' given in the Orders has not been incorporated by reference either to LDA Act or to the regulations.
33. Being guided by the aforenoted principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country, we are of the view that the definition of `professional' given in the said Order cannot be imported, while dealing with the provisions of Building Regulations, 1984.
8. Another aspect of the case, with reference to the above, is that in the aforenoted judgments, the word 'professional' has been interpreted with reference to the qualification, as in the said Order, the word 'professional' has been used with the word `qualification' whereas, in the Regulations the word `professional' has been used with the residence. Furthermore, in the case of Ehsan-ul-Haq Piracha, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has interpreted the word 'professionals' and `technocrats' side by side and after considering the definition of `professionals' used with the word 'qualification', and the word `technocrats', came to the following conclusions:-- ' "Held, a person without professional qualification but who is otherwise professionally competent, which professional competence is nationally or internationally recognized, can, become a 'technocrat' if he fulfils the other conditions in the definition of `technocrat'."
9. As regard the case of Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra's, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the definition of "professionals" has mainly relied upon the aforenoted case of Ehsan-ul-Haq Piracha and has reproduced the relevant portion of the said judgment. While interpreting the word "profession" or "professional", it has been held that definition fully governs the particular situation. In the case of Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has mainly relied upon the aforenoted judgment of Ehasan-ul-Haq Piracha, in addition to other judgments relied upon therein.
10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are of no avail to the appellant, as they were rendered in different context and while dealing with a different statute, which is not pari materia either with the LDA Act or/and the Regulations thus the reliance by the learned counsel is misplaced.
11. Now the question arises as when a 'word' has not been defined in that particular statute, then what would be the meaning, definition and interpretation of that particular word. It has been held in Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas and 3 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 495) that when the word has not been defined in the concerned statutes, ordinary dictionary meaning can be referred for determining the meaning of such word.
12. Word 'Profession' has been defined as under in Black's Law Dictionary: ' `Profession. A vocation or occupation requiring special, usually advanced, education, knowledge, and skill e.g. Law or medical profession. Also refers to whole body of such profession.
34. ' The labour and skill involved in a profession predominantly mental or intellectual, rather than physical or manual.'
35. ' Word 'professional' has also been defined in the said dictionary as under:-- ' `Professional' One engaged in one of learned professions or in an occupation requiring a high level of training and proficiency.
36. ' "Word 'profession' has been defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon as under:-- ' `Profession, calling, vocation, known employment; divinity, physic, and law are called the learned profession.'
37. ' If the meaning and definition of the word 'professional' as enumerated hereinbefore is placed in juxtaposition to the qualifications of the appellant, claiming to be a professional, given in the written statement, one has to come to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not a professional, so as to take benefit of Regulation No,51."
38. ' If such type of activities are allowed, it would seriously impair the use of the property not only of respondent No,1 but of all those who are living in this residential areas it would spoil its peaceful atmosphere and would disturb the privacy of the residents. It would be appropriate to reproduce the objectives of the Modern City Planning from a Chapter from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963 Edition, quoted by the learned Judges of this Court in the case reported as Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PLD 1994 SC 512), which are given as under:- "Goals of Modern City Planning.-The ultimate goals were social, although the plans themselves related to physical things. They were deeply involved with intermediate economic objectives. The expression of the goals was, of course, coloured by the culture of the society seeking them. In the U.S. And countries following western European traditions, the ideal urban environment would reconcile the maximum opportunity for individual choice with protection for the individual from the adverse effects of the actions of others. Within this philosophy, city planning would probably seek:
(1) the orderly arrangement of parts of the city-residential, business, industrial, etc., so that each part could perform its functions with minimum cost and conflict; (2) an efficient system of circulation within the city and to the outside world, using to the maximum advantage all modes of transportation; (3) the development of each part of the city to optimum standards, as of lot size, sunlight and green space in residential areas, and parking and building spacing in business areas;
(4) the provision of safe, sanitary and comfortable housing, in a variety of dwelling types to meet the needs of all families; (5) the provision of recreation, schools and other community services, of a high standard of size, location and quality; (6) the provision of adequate and economical water supply, sewerage, utilities and public services.
39. ' In any community, these goals might be supplemented by special goals, such as the preservation of a historical area, or the protection of property values, or the efficient conduct of Government. On occasion, the goals of some powerful special interests might be inconsistent with those of others; e.g. The preservation of slum property values and the provision of adequate housing. Furthermore, the statement of ideal goals required the use of relative terms, such as 'adequate', 'high standard', etc., which are relative rather than absolute,' and change from time to time. Therefore, inherent in the concept was the recognition that an ideal is not a fixed objective, but itself will change; that the ideal city can be striven toward, but never achieved."
20. From the above-quoted passed from Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is evident that the concept of modern city planning inter alia envisages the orderly arrangement of parts of the city-residential, business and industrial etc. So that each part could perform its functions with minimum cost and conflict. The paramount object of modern city planning seems to be to ensure maximum comforts for the residents of the city by providing maximum facilities referred to hereinabove. It must, therefore, follow that public functionary entrusted with the work to achieve the above objective cannot act in a manner, which may defeat the above objective. Deviation from the planned scheme will naturally result in discomfort and inconvenience to others."
40. The Preamble of the Act has also mandated to achieve these goals. They can only be achieved if the public functionaries entrusted with the Job implement the Rules and the Regulations in letter and spirit in an even-handed manner. The menace of encroachment, which has plagued the.
41. Whole society, can also easily be tackled if the problem is attended to in a bona fide manner without any discrimination irrespective of the status or influence of the encroacher.
42. ' As far as the directives of the Chief Minister are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out the source of the above power exercised by the Chief Minister. Section 17 of the Act would be relevant which provides that the Authority shall in discharging its functions act and be guided by such directions as the Government may give from time to time. The word "Authority" has been defined under section 2(aa) of the Act which means the Lahore Development Authority constituted under section 4 of the Act in which the Chief Minister of the Punjab alongwith many others is the member of the Authority. He, however, is also the Chairman of the Authority.
43. Under the Act the Chief Minister has not been given any power to issue any such directive. This type of exercise of issuing directives one after the other cannot be appreciated on any score in a democratic set-up. The learned Single Judge has rightly stated that the manner in which the Chief Minister has exercised powers not vested in him is not a matter of pride in any democratic set-up.
44. He was issuing directives successively which has caused multifarious difficulties for the residents of the area. Furthermore, the Director-General of L.D.A. Has not been given absolute powers to play with the Rules and the Regulations. His function is to ensure the implementation of the Regulations and not to frustrate the same. Had the matter been examined after the issuance of the directives of the Chief Minister at the very outset in accordance with law and the regulations framed by the LDA this type of situation would not have even arisen causing a lot of problems for the dwellers of the locality. Regulation 51 has also allowed a discretion to the competent authority to give permission for the use of a residential place for his professional office which has to be exercised in a legal manner and not arbitrarily. It has been held in the case of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14) wherein this Court observed as under:-- ' "A public office is a public agency or trust created in the interest and for the benefit of the people, and since an incumbent of a public office is invested with certain powers and charged with certain duties pertinent to sovereignty, the powers so delegated to the officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the Government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. Such trust extends to all matters within the range of the duties pertaining to the office. In other words public officers are but the servants of the people and not their rulers. A public officer is amenable to the rule which forbids an agent or trustee to place himself in such an attitude towards the principal or cestui que trust as to have his interest conflict with his duty...Where a statute is silent with respect to the time within which an official act must be performed, the law contemplates that the duty must be performed within a reasonable time. A public official who undertakes to perform an act, even an act which is completely discretionary, must do so reasonably and in complete good faith without such delay as would frustrate its ultimate objective.... One who accepts a public office does so cum onere, or with the burden, and is considered as accepting its burdens and obligations with its benefits. He thereby subjects himself to all Constitutional and legislative provisions relating thereto and undertakes to perform all the duties of the office, and while the remains in such office the public has the right to demand that he performs such duties. The acceptance of every public office implies an agreement on the part of the officer that he will execute its duties with diligence and fidelity. The duty of a public officer to fulfil the obligations of his office should take precedence over all other matters...Every public officer is bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of his official duties, particularly where rights of individuals may be jeopardized by his neglect. In other words, he is bound, virtue officii, to bring to the discharge of his duties that prudence, caution, and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their own affairs."
45. ' "Structuring discretion means regularizing it, organizing it, producing order in it, so that decisions will achieve a higher quality of justice. The seven instruments that are most useful in the structuring of discretionary power are open plans, pen policy statements, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open precedents, and fair informal procedure.... When legislative bodies delegate discretionary power without meaningful standards, administrators should develop standards at the earliest feasible time, and then, as circumstances permit, should further confine their own discretion through principles and rules. The movement from vague standards to definite standards to broad principles to rules may be accomplished by policy statements in any form, by adjudicatory opinions, or by exercise of the rule- making power.When legislative bodies delegate discretionary power without meaningful standards, administrators should develop standards at the earliest feasible time, and then, as circumstances permit, should further confine their own discretion through principles and rules."
46. ' Reliance is also placed upon M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Haji Muhammad Sultan (PLD 1955 Sind 78), Federation of Pakistan and others v. Messrs Charsadda Sugar Mills Ltd. (1978 SCMR 428), Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman and another (1995 SCMR 650) and Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Engr. Naraindas and others. (PLD 2001 SC 555).
47. In this case it is to be noted that the petitioner has not followed the procedure required for getting a permission from the L.D.A. So as to utilize his residential property as a commercial concern. He simply secured directives from the Chief Minister and on the basis of the same, L.D.A. Allowed to him this illegal venture. It is time and again held by this Court that if a method is prescribed to do a thing in a particular manner, it must be followed in letter and spirit. As already stated, the petitioner by simply using his influence secured directives from the Chief Minister which were blindly followed by the functionaries of the L.D.A. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Mehar Sultan Jung v.
48. Qurban Hussain (1972 SCMR 73) and Yusuf Ali Khan v. State (PLD 1977 SC 482).
49. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 had already gone to the Civil Court, as such in the circumstances the writ petition filed by her, out of which this petition has arisen, was not maintainable is totally devoid of any force. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 14-1-1996 against the illegal construction which was being used by the petitioner against Rules and Regulations of LDA. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the permission accorded by the LDA to the petitioner was withdrawn whereupon the petitioner himself filed Writ Petition No,10115 of 1996 taking exception to the withdrawal of the permission to run Health Clinic. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No,11631 of 1996. The filing of these writ petitions has not been denied by the petitioner. However, the petitioner again succeeded in securing another directive from the Chief Minister on 2-10-1996 in his favour and withdrew his both writ petitions. In these circumstances no rule or law has been violated by respondent No,1 by filing writ petition before the High Court taking exception to the successive directives of the Chief Minister which were not the subject-matter of the civil suit. The relief claimed by respondent No,1 in the Constitutional jurisdiction was totally different as compared to the relief in the civil suit wherein mandatory injunction was sought restraining the petitioner from raising illegal construction while in the writ petition exception was taken to the successive directives issued by the Chief Minister. Furthermore, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath as he himself approached the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.
50. ' The next ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 is estopped from her conduct is neither here nor there. It is the responsibility and duty of the functionaries of the L.D.A. To ensure that the Rules and Regulations made by it are implemented by the people in letter and spirit. If they are violated it is the duty of the officers concerned to take strict action against them under the law.
51. ' The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other commercial activities are going on around the area, as such the petitioner's case cannot be singled out is also without any substance. He has relied upon the case of Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SCMR 362). The petitioner cannot justify his illegal venture by saying that similar other illegal activities are going on. If this plea is accepted the result would be disastrous and dacoits/thieves would justify their actions simply by saying that other dacoits/thieves having committed similar acts have not been punished. Even otherwise the area under dispute is purely a residential one and such-like activities cannot be permitted so as to destroy its atmosphere. The aforesaid authority is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and furthermore the earlier judgment of this Court reported as Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (supra) was not brought to notice of this Court.
52. Last but not the least, it is to be noted that under Regulation 96 certain areas are subject to special control. These areas are as under:-- ' "Gulberg Road, Main Boulevard in Gulberg, New Garden Town, New Muslim Town and Allama Iqbal Town and other areas subjected to conversion of use."
53. ' It is provided therein that the properties abutting on 'these roads are subject to special control, their use from residential to commercial cannot be approved by the Director-General unless a No- Objection Certificate from the owners of the adjoining properties is provided which is a sine qua non. The present residential area is situated in New Garden Town and the petitioner admittedly had not secured any N.O.C. From the owners of the adjoining properties.
54. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.
…and 78 more citing cases