Locus standi

  1. AJK University Act — S. 38 gives locus standi to a teacher or employee of the University to move the Syndicate. M. Sarwar Ahmad v. The University of AJ&K and 6 others 1998 SCR 350 (B)
  2. Application for impleadment as a party before High Court — Application was not disposed of — The Court granted leave to file appeal — Locus standi has been recognized. Habibullah Gannaie v. Wajahat Rashid Baig and 3 others 1999 SCR 429 (E)
  3. Appellant has no locus standi to challenge the action of Mirpur Development Authority — Appellant was paid compensation for land previously belong to him — Its ownership passed to the government — The appellant being stranger has no locus standi. Ali Shan v. M.D.A. and 6 others 2000 SCR 286 (A)
  4. Since no applications were invited appellant had the locus standi to challenge the illegal allotments made in favour of the respondents. M. Adalat  v. Munshi Khan and 3 others 2000 SCR 83 (D)
  5. Question determination of — only an aggrieved person can be heard by the Court — in the present case, the head of the Department, Chief Conservator Forests and the Additional Secretary of the Forests Department appeared before the Court — recorded their statements — categorically stated that no action has been proposed or initiated on the part of the Department in presence of all organized and fully functional department, no outsider or stranger has got locus standi to approach the Courts for protection of department’s interests.  No doubt there is concept of probono public litigation but the law does not recognize proxy litigation. Raja Tahir Majeed Khan & 7 others v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 272 (B)
  6. Appellant No.8 was not a party in the writ petition in the line of petitioners or respondents — she has no right to maintain the appeal in this Court. Aroosa Nawaz v. Azad Govt. 2014 SCR 613 (Q)
  7. Determination of — prayed relief — to be looked into — According to the celebrated principle of law, for determination of locus standi , the prayed relief in the light of the contents of the writ petition has to be mainly considered. M. Akhtar & 183 others v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 2016 SCR 853 (A)
  8. —writ—dismissed in limine—non-assessment of assets and non-transfer of liabilities of newly established Universities–challenge to—- local standi of retired University employee— The appellant has retired from the service of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and neither his pensionary benefits have been refused to him nor he has been denied the payment of regular pension, rather he is regularly receiving the same, therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while dismissing the writ petition—the question more appropriately can be raised by the University itself or any other employee, having suffered due to non-transfer of the liabilities. Moreover, until the relevant provision of law referred to by Council for the University, is not challenged, no legal right can be claimed by the appellant, herein. Held: the appellant has no legal right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and the claim put forth by him only be brought by any other interested person or the University itself. Zahoor Ahmed v.  Govt. of AJ&K & 12 others 2020 SCR 645 (A, B) PLD 1987 AJK 68 & 2001 SCR 530 rel
  9.  —Section 42, Specific Relief Act, —challenge to mutation–plaintiff-respondents were not legal heirs or had any legal relationship  with the allottees—Held: Plaintiff-respondents had no right to file suit under section 42, Specific Relief Act,—-Held: They have mainly challenged the mutation through civil suit on the ground that the pedigree table on the basis of mutation has been sanctioned, is illegal as this issue has been settled by the revenue authorities, therefore, the same cannot be brought under challenge before the Civil Court without the question of title etc. Moreover, the perusal of the mutation reveals that the property allotted to Haleema Bibi and Lal Din is devolved upon Muhammad Hassan who is survived by Muhammad Rasheed and Muhammad Nazeer, appellants, herein. As the respondents, herein, have no legal relationship with Haleema Bibi and Lal Din. They are not allottee of the land, hence, they have no right to file the suit under section 42 of Specific Relief Act. The mutation No. 82 has been attested regarding the Haleema Bibi and Lal Din can only be challenged by a person claiming the inheritance from them and third party is not entitled to file a civil suit. Muhammad Rasheed & another v. Habib-ur-Rehman & 19 others 2020 SCR 807 (A)
  10.  —maintainability of suit—cause of action—suit maintainable only if party challenging has cause of action/locus standi—Held: even if it is assumed that the principle of resjudicata is not applicable in the case, even then the suit was not maintainable as it does not disclose cause of action so far as the respondents are concerned. Muhammad Rasheed & another v. Habib-ur-Rehman & 19 others 2020 SCR 807 (B) 
error: Content is protected !!