' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner, Ghulam Habib Jadoon, has impugned the order dated 12- 12-2001 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Civil Petition No,D-1805 of 2001 was allowed with the following observations:-- "In view of the above, we would allow this petition directing the respondent No,1 to demolish the building unlawfully raised within three months from today. They may recover the costs of demolition from the builder in case they so desired, but inability to recover costs will not be treated as a ground for not performing duties ordained by law. Compliance report may be submitted thereafter."
2. The respondent No,1, Karachi Watch and Care Society, is a non-governmental organization (N.G.O.) and is registered under Society Act XXI of 1986. It is looking after the problems of Karachi City relating to water, power and other easementary rights besides paying attention to the environmental hazards. It filed a petition before High Court against the petitioner for raising construction in violation of provisions of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance", stating therein that in spite of its repeated complaints the respondent No,2 failed to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Ordinance.
3 Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record forthe petitioner contends that the respondent No,1 had, no locus standi tofile the petition and action, if any, against the petitioner could be taken only by the respondent No,2. This case has the characteristics of public interest litigation and the respondent No,1, in fact, is probono publico, as such, had locus standi to file the petition and High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1985 SCMR 362.
4. It appears from record that the construction raised by the petitioner was in violation of approved plan, which visualized ground plus one floor, but the construction actually raised was of ground plus floor. Demolition order passed by High Court is in accordance with law and no exception can be taken to it.
5. In consequence, leaye to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.