Muhammad Anwar Dar VS FOP etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET.

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD,

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Writ Petition No. 2368 of 2023 Muhammad Anwar Dar Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Affairs, Islamabad and 06 others.

S.No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that order/ order/ of parties or counsel where necessary. proceeding proceeding 16.01.2024 Syed Javed Akbar Shah & Sammar Anwar, Advocates for the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously: a) Issue directions the administration to let the petitioner park his car at the premises of the Hon’ble Court;

b) Provide proper parking for lawyers and litigants in the close vicinity of the Hon’ble Court and if it is not possible, shift the Hon’ble Court to its old premises where there had been no such problems;

c) If proper parking for lawyers and litigants in the close vicinity of the Hon’ble Court is not possible, the present premises be

handed over to the Government to rent it out and contribute towards clearing of heavy debts of this nation; and d) Till the final disposal of the instant writ petition, the administration / respondents be directed to let him use the parking at the premises of the Hon’ble Court.

Any other relief, which this Honorable Court may deems just, proper and lawful may also be granted to the petitioner.”

02.Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is a senior practicing lawyer at Islamabad; he is suffering from serious multiple health issues; due to his medical condition he cannot walk without support; after shifting of the hon’ble Court to its new building at the Constitution Avenue, petitioner, litigants, lawyers and their staff facing hardships in parking; the litigants and lawyers have to park their vehicles at far distances; no public transport is available at the Constitution Avenue; respondents / government departments and CDA have miserable failed to provide for basic need of the lawyers and litigants; the petitioner has

no other adequate and efficacious remedy, hence prayed to accept the writ petition.

03.Arguments heard, record perused.

04.No relief against respondent No.1 / Ministry of Law and Justice, respondent No.2 / Ministry of Finance, respondent No.3 / Capital Development Authority has been claimed.

05.As far as writ petition against respondent No.4 / Pakistan Bar Council, respondent No.5 / Islamabad Bar Council, respondent No.6 / Islamabad High Court Bar Association and respondent No.7 / Islamabad District Bar Association is concerned, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as “Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs.

Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Building, Islamabad and others”, (2021 SCMR 425) that writ petition against Bar Councils and Bar Associations is not maintainable.

06.For the convenience, operative part of the judgment supra is reproduced as under:

“ 14. In addition, it must be noted that it is settled law that fundamental rights are by and large (very exceptional circumstances apart) are enforceable against the State and not against private individuals. The Petitioner however seeks relief against the Executive Committee Pakistan Bar Council, which is an autonomous private body and not a State institution. Therefore, an argument regarding the enforceability of fundamental rights against such a body is flawed at the outset. Accordingly, we hold that a constitutional petition against Pakistan Bar Council or its Executive Committee is not maintainable under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution.

15.The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by the High Court is equitable discretionary in nature. The High Court exercised such discretion in a lawful and valid manner on the basis of well entrenched principles on the exercise of such discretion. In the instant matter we have not found any illegality, wrongful withholding of or perversity in the exercise of such jurisdiction. Therefore, we find the impugned judgment to be well-reasoned and based upon the correct interpretation of the applicable principles of law on the subject and in accordance with principles of law settled by this Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has been unable to persuade us otherwise.”

Reliance is also placed on a case titled as

“Mohammad Waqas Malik, Advocate vs.

Islamabad Bar Council through Secretary and 2 others”, (2017 CLC 1173) [Islamabad].

07.It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Owais Shams Durrani and others Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University, Charsadda and another (2020 SCMR 1041) that:

“It is trite that where a citizen seeks relief in constitutional jurisdiction he must point to a right statutory or constitutional which vests in him and has been denied in violation of the law”.

08.It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as “N.W.F.P Public Service

Commission and others Vs.

Muhammad Arif and others” (2011 SCMR 848), that:

“The right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 of the Constitution is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right

recognized by the law. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to perform relating to the right. There must not only be a right but a justiciable' right in existence, to give jurisdiction to the High Court in the matter. Unless whatever right personal or otherwise, on which the application is based is established, no order can be issued under Art.199”.

09.Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any violation of law, rule and regulation available to the petitioner.

10.In view of foregoing discussion, instant writ petition is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed in limine being meritless.

(TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI)

JUDGE

Ahmed Sheikh

Approved for Reporting