Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Development projects---Matters of technical expertise---Domain of executive authority---Policy decisions---Scope---Courts are not that well equipped to adjudicate the technical matters relating purely to policy decisions specially those of development projects which fall under the domain of executive authority to decide to adjudicate on a policy decision---Courts no doubt have a duty to see that in decision making, no law is violated and fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution are not transgressed. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art. 199--- Public development project--- aggrieved person---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Scope---No doubt the High Court under its writ jurisdiction can issue directions to the entities performing functions in connections with the affairs of Federation and Province, on application of an aggrieved person complaining of infringement of fundamental rights---It is strange how a person can be aggrieved of any agency performing its functions to execute the development project relating to infrastructure development---High Court does not interfere in every issue of public concern under article 199 of the Constitution but only where the action of the executive authority is in violation of law and raises the question of enforcement of a fundamental right. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art. 199---Conduct of petitioner---Petitioner for claiming the equitable relief under Constitutional jurisdiction has to do equity and must appear before the Court with clean hands. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary arts, 29, 38 & 199---Public development projects/schemes---Socio economic development---State's responsibility---Principles of Policy---Scope---Development schemes fall within the policy making domain of the Federal and Provincial Governments---Principles of Policy enshrined in Part II - Chapter 2 of the Constitution hold State responsible for promotion of social and economical well being of the people---Federal and Provincial Government in order to provide basic facilities to people necessary for promotion of social, economic well-being of the people devise policy planning and execution of development projects on the basis of needs and priorities---The implementation of projects is not an easy task, it sucks hard earned money of tax payers---articles 29 and 38 of Chapter 2, Part-II of the Constitution in this regard make the State responsible to invent policy for socio economic development subject to financial resources---Executive enjoys powers to conceive development projects, and such exercise cannot be ordinarily interfered with by the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution, unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to every citizen of this Country, thereby affecting the interest of public at large. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary S.2(xlii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Development project, challenge to---Sustainable development, concept of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Aggrieved person---Policy making domain of the executive authority in matters of development schemes---Scope---A project was initiated to construct a bridge over the Indus river---As part of the project, a flyover at the site of N-55 was under construction---The flyover was part of a 12-kilometer infrastructure initiative deemed essential for regional connectivity and socio-economic uplift---The petitioner challenged the alignment of the flyover contending it was technically flawed and would cause ambiguity and accidents---Held: The concept of 'sustainable development' was given recognition for the first time in 1972 in Stockholm Declaration 1972 which meant that 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations'---Instead of supporting the project the petitioner since inception endeavored to stop it by hook or crook as he knew that human development in the area might have crushed his so called hegemony---As per the record the petitioner tried to save his own land from being utilized in the project despite having availed compensation award through land acquisition authorities---Petitioner filed the present petition with unclean hands as he did not disclose in pleadings that for the similar relief he had filed a civil suit and the said relief was declined to him---Petitioner if aggrieved by construction of flyover on the basis of technical faults should have challenged it with promptitude and such a challenge must have been raised before the execution of the project was undertaken---Challenge at a belated stage on any of the claims including those of pro bono publico could not sustain---Once the execution had started, the public exchequer remained under constant burden and delay in the execution of project could have defeated the very concept of time value of money which was primary factor in implementation and execution of project---Petitioner under the garb of public interest litigation brought a 'publicity interest litigation' or 'private inquisitiveness litigation' with a malicious design to halt the socio economic development of the areaand to frustrate a mega development project---Present petition suffered from laches as it was filed nine years after the commencement of project---Any interference into the affairs of executing agency when the project was at almost completion stage would have amounted to judicial overreach and encroachment upon the powers of executive---Petitioner was not an aggrieved person for the purpose of filing of the present Constitutional petition---Petitioner failed to establish that his fundamental rights were at stake in order to make out a case for indulgence of High Court under writ jurisdiction---Present Constitutional petition being misconceived, hit by laches, devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed MUHAMMAD ALAM SHAH vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art — 2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD