Syed Hammad Shabbir Vs DIG

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(ludicial Deportment) W.P. No. 1705-A/2022

Syed Hamad Shabbir and others.

(Petitioner/s)

VS

Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G), Hazara, Abbottabad and others.

(Respondent/s)

Present Mr. Syed Waqas Naqvi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Wajahat Hussain Shah, learned AAG, for the respondents.

Date of hearing: 04,03.2025

JUDGMENT

SADIO ALI, I.. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under;

"It is, therefore, most humbly proyed;

a. That the impugned illegal act of the respondents by erecting concrete wall on national highway (N-35) may please be declared as illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, excess of authority and be set aside.

b. That respondents No. 2 and 3 may please be directed to remove the illegal structure/ concrete wall erected on man road and to remove their name plates and inauguration boardforth with sil c. That the National Highway Authority mqy please be directed to prepare o proper working plan of all the U-turns on main National Highway (N-35) and thereofter widen them keeping in view the aspect of population convenience and safety ofcitizens d. Respondents moy please be restrained from blocking or from doing any act which tends to block the estqblished right of way (Row) of the

petitioners which they ore using since five decades ".

2.Precisely, the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioners, being residents of Lalazar Colony and adjoining streets near Main Mansehra Road, District Abbottabad, have filed this petition against the erection of a concrete wall in the middle of Main Mansehra Road (N-35) at the U- Turn near Sethi Masjid by the respondents. It is further pleaded that the construction of said wall is not only adversely affecting the petitioners but is also causing great inconvenience to the public at large by obstructing the free flow of traffic and creating unnecessary hurdles for commuters. It is fuither pleaded that the respondents have undertaken the construction without obtaining the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC). The petitioners feeling themselves aggrieved of the erection of the aforesaid wall, have approached to this Court for the aforesaid df prayer

3.When this case was taken up for hearing the respondents were put to notice and they were directed to file their para wise comments which they have accordingly submitted.

I. Arguments of the learned counsel for parties and learned AAG were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.

5.The perusal of record and comments so submitted by respondents would reveal that the U- turns in question serve as vital links connecting adjacent colonies to the main Karakoram Highway (KKH), facilitating a smoother and safer flow of traffic. These U-tums have been strategically designed to prevent illegal and hazardous road crossings, thereby reducing the risk of accidents and ensuring greater road safety. The fundamental objective behind the establishment of these U-turns is to benefit the general public by enhancing accessibility and convenience, rather than creating obstacles for specific individuals.

O. The petitioners have challenged the construction of the U-tums on the ground that they "s cause inconvenience; however, they have failed to establish any fundamental legal right of public-at-latge being violated. It is a well-settled principle of law that for a petitioner to invoke constitutional jurisdiction, they must demonstrate an infringement of their fundamental rights that directly affects them. In the present case, the petitioners lack locus standi to

challenge a public infrastructure project that is designed for the greater public good. Mere personal inconvenience does not grant them the standing to question a policy decision made in the interest of the larger community. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that decisions regarding road planning, traffic control, and urban infrastructure fall within the exclusive domain of the relevant govemmental and regulatory authorities. Courts have consistently held that policy matters, particularly those concerning public infrastructure, should not be interfered with unless they are found to be arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have neither demonstrated that the construction of U-turns violates arly statutory provision nor have they provided evidence to show that the respondents have acted d beyond their authority. In a case of "P@&!!3!!.

In Pvt Ltd. Vs. Karachi and

Board and others" reported as 2018 SCMR 365 wherein it has been held that that "iurisdtction was required to be exercised carefully, cautiously and with circumspection to safeguard and promote public interest and not to entertain and promote speculative, hypothetical or malicious attaclcs that blocked or

suspended the performance of executive functions by the Government.It has been further held that "public interest litigation undertaken by a citizen must in the first place transparently demonstrate its complete bona fides; and further that such litigation was not being undertaken to serve a private or vested interest and was demonstrably aimed at serving public interest, good or welfare".

Z. Moreover, public interest must always take precedence over grievances in cases where the govemment takes steps to improve road safety and traffic efficiency. The respondents have constructed the U-turns to streamline vehicular movement and reduce the risks associated with unauthorized road crossings. The claim that these U-turns create hurdles for specific individuals is not a sufficient ground to dd warrant judicial interference. The benefits conferred upon the general public through this initiative fat outweigh any inconvenience experienced by a few individuals. The petitioners also failed to substantiate their own grievances. In a writ jurisdiction what the writ petitioner is required is to first establish that he has suffered a "legul grievance" or he has wrongly been deprived or he has wrongly been refused something for which he was otherwise legally entitled

to, and it is only after the establishment of such a right, followed by its violation or refusal by a public functionary, and as such it would be thereafter that he may be held as entitled for the desired writ. In the case of Fazl-e-Haq, Accountanl'General, West Pakistan vs. The State reported as PLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.t 295, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court could only be invoked by a person whose legal right has been denied. This view was also followed in the case of Mian Din vs. Trust,

Lahore and another reported as PLD 1969 Supreme Court 223, in which it was held that petitioner has to show that he had a personal interest in performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in o}t' a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage. In the case of uHaliz Hamdullah v/s ,, Khan &

reported as PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52 has held that with regard to the first objection it may be noted that under Article tgg (1) (a) of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by an aggrieved person which denotes a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived

him or wrongfully refused him something which he was legally entitled to. It is also the requirement that the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has to establish that any of his legal or fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has been violated resulting in legal loss.

E. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for issuance of the desire writ, therefore, the same is dismissed.

Announced

Tahir Saleem

J DGE

,rr*ou (OD Ur. Justice Muhammad Faheem Wali and Mr' Justice Sadiq Ali