IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Present:

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

CP D 27 of 2017                  :           Imtiaz Ahmed Bhatti vs.

Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindh & others.

For the Petitioner                 :           In-person.

For private respondents      :           Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Advocate.

No.4, 8, 12 and 44.

For official Respondents    :           Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional

Advocate General.

Date of hearing                    :           07.05.2024.

Date of order                         :           07.05.2024.

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         The petitioner, admittedly devoid of locus standi, has filed this petition impugning all appointments in BPS 11, 16 and 17 as well as those in the Sindh Councils Unified Grade Services. At the very onset, the petitioner was confronted with the maintainability hereof, however, he remained unable to satisfy the court on such count.

            The exercise of powers, per Article 199 of the Constitution, was required to be undertaken upon application of an aggrieved person[1]. The petitioner has made no submission before us to suggest that he falls within the definition of an aggrieved person[2]; on the contrary it was admitted that he was not an aggrieved person and was actuated in the public interest.

            While the learned counsel insisted that this matter merited indulgence in the public interest, however, we are constrained to observe that the present petition appears to be an attempt to seek publicity, without any justifiable cause of action. Per settled law, public interest litigation ought not to be aimed at seeking publicity and the law requires the Court to ascertain whether the supplicant is acting in a bonafide manner[3]. Public interest litigation should not be a mere adventure, an attempt to carry out a fishing expedition and / or to settle personal scores[4]. The Court must distinguish between public interest litigation and publicity motivated litigation, private interest litigation and / or politically motivated litigation[5].

In view hereof, we are constrained to observe that in the lis before us the petitioner has been unable to set forth a case for the invocation of the discretionary[6] writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the listed petition, along with pending application/s, is hereby dismissed.

                                                                                    Judge

Judge

---

1 Barring certain exceptions, i.e. writ of quo warranto, however, no case was made out to qualify the present petition within an exception recognized by law; 2019 SCMR 1952.

[2]Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State reported as PLD 2020 Supreme Court 282; SECP vs. East West Insurance Company reported as 2019 SCMR 532.

[3]Akhtar Hassan Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan reported as 2012 SCMR 455.

[4]Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of Indiareported as AIR 2004 SC 1923.

[5]MianShabirAsmail vs. The Chief Minister of Punjabreported as PLD 2017 Lahore 597.

[6] Per IjazUl Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.