1. SAIYED SAEED ASH HAD, C.J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-
(a) A declaration to the effect that the action of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 directing the petitioners to stop their business in the shops/workshop at the premises bearing shops No. 21-44, Effandi Manzil, Aram Bagh, Karachi is, illegal, unjust, arbitrary, mala fide, ab initio void and of no leal effect;
(b) A declaration to the effect that the notice bearing No. G-14, dated 10.10.2001 and notice bearing No. G-14, dated 29.11.2001 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners are unjust, arbitrary, mala fide, without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(c) A declaration to the effect that the petitioners are running their showrooms/workshop in a commercial locality in a lawful manner.
(d) A declaration to the effect that the action of respondents Nos.4 and 5 threatening the petitioner and interfering in the lawful business affairs of the petitioners at shops Nos. 21-44, Effandi Manzil, Aram Bagh, Karachi is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, mala fide and of no legal effect.
(e) Grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, successors-In-interest and/or any other person or persons claiming through or under the respondent from interfering into the business affairs of the petitioners, being carried out at shops Nos. 21-44, Effandi Manzi', Aram Bagh, Karachi and from taking any step or action regarding the closure of the workshop of the petitioners at the aforesaid steps.
(f) Cost of the petition.
(g) Any other relief or reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that he has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of furniture in shops Nos. 21/44, Effandi Manzi', Aram Bagh, Karachi for the last 25 years and that he is also residing with his family in the same building. He submitted that the business that was being carried out in the said building is neither hazardous to the other residents of the building and locality nor it is causing any environmental problems yet respondent No. 2, Nazim Union Council No. 8, Saddar Town, Karachi issued the impugned notices illegally and unlawfully just to cause harassment to the petitioner.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh has disputed the above submissions. His contentions were that respondent No. 2 had issued notices to the petitioner on the complaints made by the residents of the above-mentioned building that the petitioner was causing environmental problems and the business being carried out by him was hazardous to their health.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and with their assistance we have examined the material available on record.
5. Respondents alongwith their counter-affidavit filed a large number of complaints of the residents made against the petitioner and others that entire atmosphere was being polluted due to the business being carried out by the petitioner on which respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioner and others. Section 80 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XXVII of 2001) empowers a Union Nazim to report to the concerned authorities in respect of environmental and health hazards.
6. In the instant case, only notices have been issued to the petitioners to appear before the Nazim and to explain their position. In our view, by issuing these notices no illegality has been committed by respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, the matter involves factual controversies, which cannot be settled in a Constitutional Petition. In the circumstances, this petition being without merit and also not maintainable is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application.