Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 897
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 1919/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Haroon Nisar & Ors (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 897. In this matter between Const. P. 1919/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Haroon Nisar & Ors (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1919/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 897 PARTIES: Haroon Nisar & Ors (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 08-APR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1
1
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petittion No.D-1024 of 2021 (Amena Khan Sherwani & others versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-6962 of 2021 (Naeem Sadiq & others versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-1156 of 2022 (Anwar Mansoor Khan versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-6131 of 2022 (Roohi Rasheed & another versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-2211 of 2023 (Samiah Zia versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-5001 of 2023 (Qazi Khalid Ali versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-5682 of 2023 (Syed Moiz Hussain versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-5683 of 2023 (Raana Hyder Zaidi versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-5684 of 2023 (Raana Hyder Zaidi versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-3737 of 2024 (Abdul Rehman & others versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-1294 of 2024 (Yasmin Sohail & others versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-3510 of 2024 (Samira Mahamadi versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Constitutional Petition No.D-1919 of 2025 (Haroon Nisar & others versus Federation of Pakistan & others)
Date Order with signature of Judge(s).
Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Dated of hearing and order: 08.04.2026
Mr. Muhammad Jibran Nasir, Advocate for Petitioner in C.P. No.D-6962/2021.
M/s. Asim Mansoor Khan and Zeeshan Bashir Khan, Advocates for Petitioners in C.P. No.D-1156/2022 and 2211/2024.
Mr. Tahmasp Rasheed Rizvi, Advocate for the Petitione r in C.P. No.D - 6131/2022.
M/s Ameer Nausherwan Adil, Abdul Razzak and Zeeeshan Ahmed, Advocates for the Petitioner in C.P. No.D-5682/2023.
M/s. Ghazi Khan Khalil, Aftab Ali and Syed Kumail Abbas, Advocates for the Petitioner in C.P. Nos.D-5683 and 5684 of 2023.
Mr. Muhammad Irfan Siddiqui, Advocate for the Petitioner in C.P. No.D - 5001/2023.
Mr. Daniyal Muzaffar along with Ms. Maimoona, Advocates for the Petitioner in C.P. Nos.D-3737/2024, 1294/2024 and 1919/2025.
Petitioner Samira Mahamadi in person in C.P. No.D-3510/2024.
2
2
M/s. Zain A. Soomro , Tahir Ali Soomro and Muhammad Naeem, Advocates for the Respondent No.4 in C.P. No.D -5001/2023 and for Respondent No.5 in C.P. No.D-1024/2021.
Mr. Abdullah Munshi, advocate for CBC in C.P. Nos.D -3737/2024 and 3510/2024.
Mr. Talha Abbasi, Advocate for Respondents. Mr. Syed Zaeem Hyder, Advocate for Respondents. Mr. Zaheer Hussain, Advocate for Respondents. Ms. Bushra, Advocate for Respondent -DHA in C.P. Nos. -D-3737/2024 and 3510/2024.
Mr. Masroor Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent-KW&SC. Mr. Jawad Dero, Advocate General Sindh.
Ms. Wajiha Mahdi, D.A.G. ------------------------------
O R D E R
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J. The Petitioners in all petitions generally pray for a direction to the Cantonment Board Clifton (CBC) and other concerned Municipal authorities to ensure the continuous and adequate supply of clean and potable water to the residents of the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), including the installation of water meters where required. Furthermore, the Pe titioners request a declaration that DHA, particularly Block 8, being a predominantly civilian residential area, cannot la wfully be treated as part of a C antonment. Consequently, they have prayed that the CBC be declared to have no lawful jurisdiction over the properties situated in DHA Block 8. The Petitioners also seek a declaration that the inclusion or transfer of such civilia n areas within the limits of a Cantonment is illegal and contrary to the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Cantonments Act, 1 924. Owing to the similarity of legal and factual issues, the petitions are taken up together for disposal. 2. Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Zeeshan Bashir Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners in C.P. No. D-1156 of 2022 and C.P. No. 2211 of 2024, led the case and apprised this Court that the very establishment o f the CBC is legally flawed and unsupported by any valid notification issued by the Federal Government. He submitted that the CBC claims its creation through Notification SRO 7(I)/83 dated 27.02.1983; however, such reliance is misconceived. According to the learned counsel, the said SRO pertains to sales tax exemptions and not to the creation or demarcation of a cantonment area. This position is substantiated by SRO 346(I)/2002 dated 15.06.2002, which rescinded SRO 7(I)/83 in the context of sales tax, as well as Sales Tax Circular No. 1 of 1990 dated 11.01.1990, both of which refer to the SRO in a purely fiscal context. Consequently, it was argued that no valid Federal Governmen t notification exists establishing the CBC or defining its territorial limits as required under the law. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported as 1988 MLD 1415 (Zila Council
3
3
Bahawalpur v. Cantonment Board ), wherein it was held that a cantonment can only be created through a valid notification issued by the Federal Government; in the absence thereof, the assumption of authority by a cantonment board is unlawful. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 , a “C antonment” is defined as a place where the armed forces are quartered. Historically, the provision referred to the “regular forces or the regular air force,” which was later substituted by the term “armed forces” through Act XLVII of 2023 . Section 4 of the Act empowers the Federal Government to declare or alter the limits of a cantonment by issuing a formal notification. It was contended that DHA Block 8 is a predominantly civilian residential area with no substantial presence of armed forces and, in the abs ence of a valid notification under Sections 3 and 4, its inclusion within the jurisdiction of the CBC is without lawful authority. Without conceding to the issue of jurisdiction, learned counsel argued that even if the CBC is assumed to possess lawful auth ority, it remains statutorily bound to ensure the provision of potable water to the residents under Chapter XIII of the Cantonments Act, 1924 . In particular, Section 217 mandates the Board to make adequate provision for a continuous supply of pure and fit water for human consumption throughout the year. Section 218 empowers the Board, with the sanction of the Federal Government, to control and develop sources of public water supply, including lakes, streams, springs, wells, tanks, or reservoirs, whether wit hin or outside the cantonment limits. Therefore, the CBC cannot evade its responsibility by attributing non -supply to the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB). Reference was also made to Sections 219, 220, 221, 223, and 224 , which collectively confer wide powers upon the Board to regulate, maintain, and ensure the provision of water supply, while clarifying that the limited protection under Section 223 does not absolve the Board of its primary statutory duty. It was further contended that the CBC is lega lly obligated to create and maintain independent water sources, including obtaining connections from nearby lakes such as Kalri and Haleji, installing wells and reservoirs, or establishing desalination facilities, rather than relying solely on external age ncies. Learned counsel emphasized that the denial of clean drinking water constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 . In support of this contention, reliance was pl aced on several judicial pronouncements, including PLD 1994 SCMR 693 (Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA), which recognized that the right to life encompasses the right to a healthy and clean environment, including access to safe water; 2018 SCMR 1612 and 2018 SCMR 2 001 (Barrister Zafarullah Khan v. Federation of Pakistan ), affirming access to clean and potable water as a fundamental human right; and 2017 SCMR 732 (Shahab Usto v. Government of Sindh ), highlighting the State’s responsibility to ensure equitable water d istribution. Further reliance was placed
4
4
on 2004 CLC 578 (Nazar Ali v. KWSB ), holding that authorities cannot levy water charges where no water supply is provided; 2001 YLR 3145 (Emirates International v. Federation of Pakistan ), confirming the responsibil ity of cantonment boards for bulk water supply under Section 217 of the Act; order passed by this Court in 2017 CLC 1129 (Rukhsana Yahya v. Federation of Pakistan) and 2016 CLC 170 (Muhammad Rafiq Sra v. Province of Sindh ), emphasizing the statutory obliga tions of public authorities to ensure water supply and curb illegal hydrants; and 1974 SCMR 140, establishing that legal action may be taken where a statutory authority neglects to perform its duties. He further submitted that the imposition and collection of municipal or water taxes without providing the corresponding services are unlawful and liable to constitutional challenge. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel contended that the creation and jurisdiction of the CBC over DHA Block 8 l ack lawful basis due to the absence of a valid Federal Government notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 . DHA Block 8, being a predominantly civilian residential area, cannot legally be classified as a cantonment. Even if jurisdic tion is presumed, the CBC remains under a statutory obligation to ensure the continuous supply of clean and potable water, and the denial thereof constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. Furth ermore, the levy of taxes without the provision of corresponding services is unlawful and liable to be set aside. In view of the above, learned counsel prayed that this Court to allow the petitions in their entirety and grant the reliefs sought therein. 3. Learned counsel for the remaining Petitioners unequivocally adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the Petitioners in C.P. No. D-1156 of 2022 and C.P. No. D -2211 of 2024. However, they added that the Petitioners are bona fide r esidents of the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Karachi, who have consistently discharged all municipal and property -related taxes, including conservancy and water charges levied b y the CBC . Despite fulfilling these statutory obligations, the Petitioners have been deprived of the basic necessity of life , namely, a clean and uninterrupted supply of potable water due to the inefficiency, indifference, and alleged corrupt practices of the Respondents. It was contended that Respondent No. 2, being the develope r of DHA, and Respondent No. 3, the Cantonment Board Clifton , acting as a municipal authority under the Cantonments Act, 1924, are under both statutory and constitutional obligations to provide essential civic amenities, particularly a reliable piped water supply. Instead of ensuring such provision, the Respondents have shifted responsibility onto each other, leaving residents dependent on expensive water tankers, often controlled by a so -called “tanker mafia,” allegedly operating with the tacit approval of the authorities. Learned counsel further
5
5
argued that the imposition and collection of water taxes by Respondent No. 3, in the absence of corresponding services, is illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful authority. Such conduct, it was submitted, violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10 -A, 14, 18, and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Particular emphasis was placed on Article 9, the right to life, which has been interpreted by the superior courts to include access to clean and safe drinking water. It was also submitted that several initiatives aimed at addressing the water crisis , such as the establishment of Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) plants during the years 2015 -16 and 2017/18, were e ither obstructed, mismanaged, or diverted from their intended purpose. A Reverse Osmosis plant with a capacity of 600,000 gallons per day, established by DHA, is allegedly being utilized to supply water to clubs and VIP residences rather than to the genera l public. Similarly, a 100,000 -gallon-per-day R.O. plant donated through the Chinese Consulate is reportedly being used for the commercial sale of water tankers instead of providing free piped water to residents. Counsel further highlighted that the existe nce of illegal hydrants along the main supply line and severe leakages in the overhead pipeline from Korangi Crossing to DHA have exacerbated the water shortage, resulting in substantial losses. Despite judicial directions by this Court in the case of Rukhsana Yahya v. Federation of Pakistan , as discussed supra and widespread public awareness, including media coverage, the Respondents have failed to undertake the necessary remedial measures and comply with the directions of this Court . It was additionally contended that the reliance on water bowsers is discriminatory and financially burdensome, enabling preferential treatment to certain residents while the majority are compelled to purchase water at exorbitant rates. This practice not only leads to the wast age of public resources but also undermines transparency and accountability in the utilization of public funds. Learned counsel also challenged the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board Clifton over DHA Phases VI, VII, and VIII. It was argued that these are as are reclaimed civilian localities that do not fall within the ambit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and that no lawful Federal Government notification exists declaring them as cantonment areas. Consequently, the levy of taxes and the exercise of authority by the CBC in these areas were asserted to be without lawful authority. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was contended that the persistent failure and inaction of the Respondents in ensuring an adequate and equitable water supp ly constitute illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional conduct. The Petitioners, therefore, seek the intervention of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce their fundamental rights by directing the establishment of an efficient piped w ater supply system within a specified timeframe, ensuring the interim provision of water bowsers without additional charges, mandating transparency through proper metering and auditing, and declaring the unlawful extension of
6
6
cantonment jurisdiction over t he DHA areas. It was finally urged that the Respondents have deprived the Petitioners of the most essential necessity of life, thereby infringing their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is ur ged that the Respondents are wasting precious public resources by failing to design, develop, and implement an efficient water supply system for DHA residents. The continued reliance on water bowsers was /is described as merely a temporary and unsustainable solution, constituting a waste of public funds, a source of nuisance for residents, and a hazard to the environment. They prayed to allow these petitions. 4. Petitioner Samira Mahamadi in person in C.P. No.D -3510/2024 submitted that this court in the case of Rukhsana Yahya v. Federation of Pakistan supra has already decided the subject issue which needs to be implemented in its letter and sprit wherin it was committed on behalf of the CBC that due to the acute shortage and intermittent supply of water, the Board, in its capacity as a municipal authority, has been arranging additional water through bowsers for residents of DHA who are not receiving a regular supply through the water distribution lines. Under the prevailing policy, residents are required to apply online, upon which computer-generated coupons are issued for the allocation of up to five water bowsers per month per property, each having a capacity of 1,000 gallons, however, subject to the availability of water and the regular payment of applicable dues. And this court directed that CBC shall not charge or collect water tax from residents who are not provided water through supply lines or bowsers. She prayed for directions to ensure transparency, accountability, and an adequate water supply to t he residents of DHA, including an order r equiring CBC to place before this Court the compliance report and upload on its website; the 1999 MOU with KWSB for the supply of 9 MGD of water. She further sought directions for KWSB to honour the agreement and fo r CBC to initiate proceedings under Sections 37 and 57 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, for damages resulting from any short or non-delivery of the agreed quantity. She prayed to allow this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the r espondent, CBC, submitted tha t the CBC is a duly constituted statutory body established under President’s Order No. 07 of 1980 and the Cantonments Act, 1924. As a corporate municipal authority, it exercises civic administration over the Clifton Cantonment area as defined through offic ial Gazette notifications, including S.R.O. 207(I)/83 issued by the Federal Government. It was contended that CBC is legally entitled to levy water charges only to the extent of the water actually supplied, a principle already affirmed by th is Court in the case of Rukhsana Yahya v. Federation of Pakistan , as discussed supra , which remains binding. In this regard, counsel supported the installation of water meters in all residential units, in line with the National Water Policy, to ensure that residents are charged strictly on the basis of actual
7
7
consumption. He further clarified that the present water crisis does not stem from any negligence on the part of CBC but is primarily attributable to the acute shortage of bulk water supplied by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Corporation (KWSC). While the total demand within CBC’s jurisdiction is approximately 14 - 16 million gallons per day (MGD), the supply has significantly declined to about 4-5 MGD, resulting in low pressure and irregular pipeline distribution, particularly in areas with incomplete infrastructure. As a remedial and hardship measure, CBC has implemented a regulated water bowser system under an approved policy issued through CBR No. 24 dated 08.02.2017 to ensure fair and transparent distribution. The charges levied for Bowser supply are subsidized and intended only to recover part of the additional operational costs rather than to generate commercial profit. Given the limited resources comprising a fleet of 44 bowsers catering to more than 43,000 reside ntial units, it is practically impossible to provide an uninterrupted supply to all residents through this mechanism; nevertheless, CBC continues to make its best efforts to supply water, including to the petitioners, in accordance with its po licy and the directions of this Court. Learned counsel referred to the report and submitted that, pursuant to the Court’s order dated 02.02.2024, CBC has filed a compliance report demonstrating regular delivery of water bowsers to the petitioners and other residents, s upported by photographic evidence. To address the long -term shortage, a joint meeting between KWSC, CBC, and the Station Headquarters resulted in a comprehensive roadmap comprising short -, mid -, and long -term measures. In the short term, KWSC has proposed the establishment of two official water -filling stations at Kashmir Road, Karachi, subject to the resolution of existing stay orders, with implementation anticipated within fifteen days of this Court’s permission. For the mid-term, a dedicated water supply project is planned, involving the installation of a new pipeline from Dumlottee to DHA Phase VII, along with a filtration plant and pumping station, at an estimated cost of PKR 6 billion , financed by the Government of Sindh. DHA will provide the necessary land and install flow meters at the source and delivery points. This project is expected to become operational by June 2026 and will ensure a dedicated supply of at least 8 MGD, in addition to the existing 5 MGD supplied by KWSC, with an estimated tariff of 60-65 paisa per gallon. In the long term, the matter will be taken up with the Federal Government to secure an additional 10 MGD of water from the under - construction K -IV water project, anticipated to be available by June 2028. It is urged that CBC clar ify that only about 1 MGD of water is supplied through bowsers, while the majority is delivered through pipelines. The reliance on bowsers is necessitated by insufficient pressure and the absence of pipeline infrastructure in certain areas, particularly Ph ase VII Extension. The standardized policy ensures transparency and uniformity in distribution. Counsel also emphasized the point that the pet itioners have not approached this Court with
8
8
clean hands, having suppressed material facts relating to infrastructural limitations and the ongoing remedial efforts undertaken by CBC. Furthermore, it was argued that the petitions involve disputed and complex questions of fact , such as adequacy of supply, infrastructure constraints, and distribution logistics , which cannot be effectively adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without detailed evidence. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners possess adequate and efficacious alternate remedies under the law, which they have failed to avail. Consequently, the present constitutional petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of disputed questions of fact, lack of locus standi, and the availability of alternate remedies. He prayed to dismiss the captioned petitions. 6. The learned Assistant Attorney General and remaining official respondents adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Cantonment Board Clifton and prayed for dismissal of the listed petitions. 7. However, the l earned Advocat e General, Sindh, assisted by learned counsel for the KW&SC, referred to the report and submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by this Court in the instant Constitutional Petitions regarding a permanent solution for the regul ar supply of water to the residents of DHA/CBC, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer (Water) of KW&SC were directed to enhance the water supply up to 6 MGD within ten days and to take effective measures to eliminate leakages and theft from the ma in pipeline between Pipri Pumping Station and Chakra Goth. It was further submitted that KW&SC is presently supplying water to the Clifton Cantonment Board (CBC) and DHA through 11 connections, comprising 5 connections for DHA and 6 for CBC, at different p oints of the distribution system. Owing to the acute shortage of water, the supply is being regulated under a structured rationing schedule, and approximately 6 MGD of water is being supplied from all available sources. Learned counsel for KW&SC further st ated that the ongoing drive against illegal connections from Pipri Reservoir to Korangi and Chakra Goth is still underway, aimed at improving the overall supply to DHA and CBC. Through strict valve operations and rationing measures, the supply has been enh anced to approximately 6 MGD in compliance with the directions of this Honourable Court. It was also submitted that a joint meeting between representatives of DHA, CBC, and KW&SC was held in the office of the CEO/MD, KW&SC , to explore measures for increasi ng water supply and resolving the persistent shortage. He prayed for further appropriate directions that shall be complied with in accordance with the law.
9
9
8. In view of the pleadings, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the record placed before this Court, the following questions arise for determination: 1. Whether the inclusion of DHA Phases/Blocks within the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board Clifton (CBC) is lawful in the absence of a valid Federal Government notification…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.