ARTICLE 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan serves as a safeguard for the fundamental rights of a citizen, providing them an avenue to approach the high court to seek justice. The high court, if it is satisfied that a fundamental right exists, and no other adequate remedy is provided by the law, exercises its power, and issues directions to persons performing functions related to the affairs of the federation, a province or a local authority (that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the high court). The high court can direct the persons to refrain from ultra vires acts or perform duties mandated by the law and provide justice to the aggrieved citizen.

Rushing to courts to file suits and petitions, whether for genuine grievances or malicious intent, is easy for litigants in a complainant-centred judicial system. In Islamabad, the Capital Development Authority, established in 1960, is a popular target of litigation. It holds jurisdiction on all matters of property ownership, building control procedures, subdivision and amalgamation of plots in addition to other duties stipulated by the law. The CDA is also the custodian of record of approved residential/ commercial land in Islamabad.

Voltaire warned in the 18th century: `Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.` Quite recently, a litigant in the garb of an aggrieved citizen filed a petition under Article 199 in the Islamabad High Court. The prayer in the petition revealed the absurdity of the demand stating that the official letter of subdivision issued by the CDA decades ago, to the then co-owners of the plot be quashed. Notwithstanding the jabberjaw narrative in the petition, the atrocity committed in the process was, that under the garb of an apparent attack on the CDA, the design was to engage and entrap the lawful owner of the property infrivolous litigation.

Official sub-division of a plot, being one of the procedures of the CDA, is not allowed by the authority without prior approval, and only after a formal application is submitted by the owner/ coowners of any plot. Only one bifurcation/ sub-division of a plot is allowed in respect of plots measuring 1,000 square yards and above, provided each divided portion of the plot is not less than 500 square yards. The numerical plot number, as per the master plan, is retained and allotted to the first, and to the second plot an alphabet `A` is suffixed with the plot number. It is scandalous when extraneous parties, lacking ownershipdocumentation, are permitted by courts to challenge procedural and administrative decisions of the CDA using Article 199, where the obvious intent is to harass the bona fide owners.

Some might argue that people go to the judiciary as the CDA is corrupt and inefficient. While corruption and inefficiency are indeed pervasive issues plaguing all government-run systems, it is also essential to acknowledge there are upright, honest, competent and committed individuals in all set-ups working to sanitise their organisations to promote good governance. Rather than blaming each other, each state body, including the judiciary, must take an introspective approach and eradicate both inefficiency and corruption lurking within their own system.

The above-mentioned case was dismissed with heavy cost by the honourable Islamabad High Court in a landmark judgement. The system, however, failed to implement the cost order. The logic of`cost imposed` is to form a judicial shield to protect the respondent from any further malicious litigation from the litigant.

Ideally, the litigant should not be allowed to file anyfurther petition if the monetary cost imposed is unpaid. That the litigant in this case proceeded to advanced forums while sidestepping the order of cost indicates a loophole, but the fact that more dismissals were faced as the litigant proceeded is a story to be told separately, where one can praise the brilliant judicial minds (at all forums) that adjudicated.

Given the rise in property frauds in the capital territory, unethical counsels who facilitate malicious litigation, and insidious litigants who harass innocent citizens must be viewed as a propertygrabbing team. Whereas reform-oriented penalties, such as mandatory courses in ethical legal practice for the offending counsel and community service for the litigant would build character: when it comes to asserting authority to collect cost imposed, the judiciary must emulate the determination shown by FBR, where rules and methods are clearly laid out to collect taxes and penalties from taxpayers. • The wnter is an ex civil servant. She studied at the University of Oxford and taught English literature at Kinnaird College.