ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.P. No.D-406 of 2010.

DATE

OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For Hearing of M.A.No.1222/10.

11.01.2011

Mr. Muhammad Ashique Dhamraho advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgari, Addl. A. G a/w Abdul Qadir Sangi on behalf of respondents No.7 and 8.

-.-.-.-.-.-

Through instant petition the petitioner has prayed for construction of Pakka Road for the villagers of village Haji Ali Gul Bughti from their village to main road leading from Kamber to Larkana on the bank of Water Course No.5-L which is already being used by the villagers from last 50/60 years. It has been contended that in the year 2006-2007 scheme for construction of such road was approved and as per correspondence it appears that certain progress had already been made. However till todate such road has not been constructed. The petitioner has also objected to the construction of road linking from village Rohil Khan Bughty coming from back side of village Haji Ali Gul Bughty and submitted that construction of such road will be of no usage to the villagers of the petitioner.

The Executive Engineer, Provincial Highway Division Larkana and District Officer, Roads have filed comments, wherein it has been intimated that though construction of road as claim of the petitioner was administratively approved. However, on account of some unavoidable circumstances and financial constraints, the construction of the road could not be initiated and the scheme was eventually dropped by the competent authority. As regards construction of the road from Rohil Bughty is concerned, it has been intimated that the construction has almost been completed which facts has also been acknowledged by the petitioner.

On the face of it, it appears that the matter pertains to the policy matter of the Provincial government and district government which cannot be interfered with by this Court, and individual claims cannot be enforced through Constitutional Petition, unless some Constitutional rights are likely to be effected.

In view of herein above, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner at this stage, accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.

Judge