Sindh High Court
Faiz Muhammad Palari (Petitioner) VS Govt of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Outcome The petition and all pending applications were dismissed in limine.
- Case
- Const. P. 1768/2025
- Type
- Writ Jurisdictions
- Bench
- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
- Length
- 3 pages
The petition sought removal of an allegedly illegal and unauthorized cattle market/piri for Eid-ul-Adha sacrificial animals, along with related relief about dumping and wastewater. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that an alternative remedy was available, the matter was already before the Supreme Court, and no final government decision was available for constitutional review.
The full analysis is free with a Lawzo account
- The background of the case
- 3 issues before the court
- 4 holdings, each with the court's own words and page
- 2 laws applied
- 2 cases relied on, linked to the library
Takes a few seconds with Google. You'll come straight back here.
Written by AI from the judgment's text and may miss nuance. Rely on the full judgment below and the court's official copy. Court's own note: This Court finds the present petition suitable for immediate dismissal ("in limine"). The reasons are that the Supreme Court is already addressing almost identical issues in an appeal connected to Civil Petition No. (Nill) of 2024, and the petitioner has not offered any fresh point of view, except that the petitioner has established an unauthorized Cattle Piri (market) for Eid-ul-Adha sacrificial animals, and the subject issue is under consideration before the Assistant Commissioner concerned. In such a scenario, the Assistant Commissioner needs to first handle the petitioner's local government application, annexed with the memo of petition regarding this issue. Seeking both certiorari and mandamus relief at this stage is premature because an alternative legal remedy is still available. Constitutional Courts intervene only when all other options are exhausted, which is not the situation here. Moreover, there is no final government decision for this court to review, and Article 199 of the constitution does not apply to disputes involving private parties. Since the Supreme Court is already considering the requested relief in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5731 of 2024 (within the same Civil Petition), and a restraining order is operating, this court cannot entertain the current petition.
Full judgment
Official copyIN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
CP. No. D-1768 of 2025 (Faiz Muhammad Palari v Province of Sindh &others ) Date Order with signature of Judge Before:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha Mr. Justice Adnan-ul_Karim Memon
Date of hearing and Order: 05.05.2025
M/s Muhammad Daud Narejo and Kamran Ali advocates for the petitioner.
ORDER
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J: Petitioner Faiz Muhammad Palari has filed this public interest petition seeking the demolition/removal of an allegedly illegal and unauthorized Cattle Piri (market) for Eid-ul- Adha sacrificial animals. The petition names respondent No. 13, Jamil Memon, who he states also owns a cattle/dairy farm in Dumba Goth, Superhighway, within Deh Konkar and Deh Khurkhro, District Malir, Karachi.
2.The petitioner's counsel argued that respondent No. 13 unlawfully established a cattle market/piri without approval from respondent No. 2 (or the Sindh Building Control Authority) and respondent No. 8. This unauthorized establishment, according to him, violates building and zoning regulations, causing difficulties and diseases (malaria, dengue, respiratory issues, diarrhea, cough, flu in children) for nearby residents due to unsanitary conditions. Despite approaching authorities, no action was taken against respondent No. 13, who is also allegedly violating environmental laws (Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014). The counsel further stated that while respondent No. 3 (Commissioner Karachi) and KMC notified nine legal cattle market locations, respondent No. 13 illegally established this piri without permission and is unlawfully collecting taxes. The counsel also mentioned a prior successful petition (C.P. No D-2292 of 2023) filed by Muhammad Bux and others against respondent No. 13, which is currently under appeal by respondent No. 13 before the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel prayed for an order restraining the private respondent from dumping dung from his cattle farms at unauthorized locations, including Dumba Goth. He also requested the court to direct them to ensure the safe disposal of wastewater from these cattle farms. The petitioner's counsel referred to the inspection report, which he claims to have filed in the earlier petition, highlighting an established, ill-defined cattle mandi ("Jameel Memon Colony") for Eid-ul- Adha on the subject land where the lease for 176 acres (held by Jamil
Memon's cooperative) had expired, with illegal possession of around 400 acres reported. According to him, Jamil Memon claimed payment for a longer lease, which was not issued. He further claims that no proper wastewater drainage was evident, and the source of the alleged sewage flow was unverifiable due to the area's size. Eviction notices and drives were previously conducted but were suspended due to litigation. The counsel pointed to widespread occupation of state land without clear titles, suggesting official collusion. He reiterated the request for safe wastewater disposal and supported the demand for a joint committee-supervised survey to protect state land from encroachment.
3.At this point, the learned counsel also placed before us the Supreme Court's order dated July 1, 2024, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5731 of 2024 in Civil Petition No. (Nill) of 2024, by which the judgment of this court in an earlier round of litigation was challenged. He admitted that in the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court had ordered that no adverse action be taken against the private respondent pending the next hearing.
4.After carefully scrutinizing the record and hearing the petitioner's counsel on the maintainability of the petition, the key question for this Court is to determine whether the petitioner has any other effective legal remedy available, and if so, should this Court grant any relief under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction?
5.This Court finds the present petition suitable for immediate dismissal ("in limine"). The reasons are that the Supreme Court is already addressing almost identical issues in an appeal connected to Civil Petition No. (Nill) of 2024, and the petitioner has not offered any fresh point of view, except that the petitioner has established an unauthorized Cattle Piri (market) for Eid-ul-Adha sacrificial animals, and the subject issue is under consideration before the Assistant Commissioner concerned. In such a scenario, the Assistant Commissioner needs to first handle the petitioner's local government application, annexed with the memo of petition regarding this issue. Seeking both certiorari and mandamus relief at this stage is premature because an alternative legal remedy is still available. Constitutional Courts intervene only when all other options are exhausted, which is not the situation here. Moreover, there is no final government decision for this court to review, and Article 199 of the constitution does not apply to disputes involving private parties. Since the Supreme Court is already considering the requested relief in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5731 of 2024 (within the same Civil
Petition), and a restraining order is operating, this court cannot entertain the current petition.
6.Furthermore, the petitioner's brother already raised these very points, among others, in a previous petition concerning a land dispute. Therefore, it would be improper for this court to intervene while the Supreme Court is seized of the matter. Additionally, the petitioner's public nuisance claim does not arise from a fundamental right, especially since he appears to conflict with the private respondent on specific issues, which requires evidence to be presented before the appropriate court.
7.For the aforesaid reasons, the petition and all pending applications are dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
Head of the Cost. Benches
Shafi
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Sindh High Court · 2026 SHC KHI 1438 · 13 Jul 2026 Muhammad Safaraz (Petitioner) VS Provincial Ombudsman Sindh & Others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2025 SHC HYD 3562 · 25 Nov 2025 Haji Muhammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2026 SHC HYD 1118 · 13 May 2026 Ahmed Saeed Jan Sirhindi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2026 SHC KHI 524 · 26 Feb 2026 Faiyaz Ahmed & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2024 SHC KHI 1154 · 12 Dec 2024 Saresh Kumar Manglani (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)