Const. Petition No.D-3619 of 2012
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti
Date of hearing : 21.11.2012
Date of order : 21.11.2012
Petitioners : Nazakat Hussain Shah & others through
Mr. Gulzar Hussain Bukhari, advocate
Respondent : Federation of Pakistan through
Mr. Dilawer Hussain, Standing Counsel.
Respondent No.2 & 4 : through Mr. Altaf Hussain Khoso,
Advocate.
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J Through instant petition, the petitioners have sought relief against the respondent Pakistan Railway, Karachi, in respect of the terms and conditions of allotment of vending stall, situated at Platform No.1 at Landhi Railway Station for the period of one year w.e.f. 15.5.2012 to 14.4.2013 in respect of Stall No.2, allotted to Petitioner No.1, 15.7.2012 to 14.6.2012 in respect of Stall No.1, allotted to Petitioner No.2 and also in respect of allotment of Vending Stall No.3 allotted to Petitioner No.3. Such allotments were made through public auction and subject to certain conditions as detailed in the allotment letters. The petitioners have sought 50% reduction in respect of payment of monthly installments of the bid amount and withholding tax thereon.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents, whereas petitioners were directed to satisfy this Court as to maintainability of the instant petition.
3. Pursuant to Court notices, respondent No.2 has filed comments, wherein besides raising an objection as to maintainability of instant petition, the contents of petition have also been vehemently denied and disputed.
4. While confronted as to maintainability of the instant petition, through which the petitioners have sought modification in the terms and conditions of the allotment, which otherwise was granted to the petitioners through open public auction, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfactorily explain his position in this regard. However, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have written a letter to the respondents seeking reduction in the payment of monthly installments by explaining reasons for such request, however, such request of the petitioners has not been considered nor any response has been made by the respondents.
5. We do not find any merits in the instant petition, whereas the petitioners have failed to point out any legitimate right guaranteed by Constitution, which has been violated or denied by the respondents, nor any discriminatory treatment to petitioners has been alleged. We are not inclined to interfere into the terms and conditions agreed between the contracting parties in constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, instant petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed in limine. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents seeking any modification or concession in the terms of the allotment as referred to hereinabove.
JUDGE
JUDGE