1995 SCMR 305 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN VS MUHAMMAD SABIR Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--25 , S. 30---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3), 199 & 25--Discrimination, rule of ---Consistency---Affectees of clean up operation by Market Committee, occupying plots lying within the boundary of New Market and constructing shops after their eviction from the old grain market---Such shops having been constructed without permission/sanction of Market Committee, they were served with notice to vacate the land under their occupation whereupon they filed Constitutional petition wherein compromise was effected between those affectees and Market Committee which agreed to treat them as tenants upon a specified monthly rent---Respondent being one of such affectee had not joined in that Constitutional petition---Market Committee serving notice upon such affectee to vacate the land under his occupation ---Respondents Constitutional petition similar to the one which had been filed by other affectees was dismissed---Respondent's Intra-Court appeal, however, bore fruit and Market Committee was directed to treat him as tenant like the other affectees---Validity---Market Committee having itself accommodated other affectees (whose case was similar to that of respondent) by allotting them alternate accommodation, rule of consistency requires equal treatment with respondent whose claim was identical to the claim of other affectees who had filed earlier Constitutional petition and were accommodated by the Market Committee by treating them as tenants---Order passed in Intra Court Appeal was fair and proper one, which had advanced justice between the parties---Before a person could be permitted to invoke discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction it must be shown that order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to parties---Order in question, having not caused injustice, extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked---Respondent, however, could not be allowed to retain more area than was allotted to other affectees and he was directed to hand over excess area to the Market Committee---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.