2009 PLP 803 (CLC)
TARIQ MIR — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 803 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TARIQ MIR — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 803 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 803 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 803 (CLC) (TARIQ MIR — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 44
Contractual rights
Contract was executed by the department without inviting tenders and calling application from the aspirants and mode which was adopted to award the contract had not. been recognized in the eye of law
Said contract was executed by the functionary of the department one day after his transfer
Said functionary was not legally authorized to enter into the contract with private person and had no power to make any contract without permission of higher officials of his department; and he was not granted any permission to make such contract
Contract executed was illegal and any type of further proceedings by officials of the department to legalize the contract, had no legal sanctity in the eye of law
Objection that writ petition could not lie regarding contractual rights, was. not maintainable because High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction had power to examine the validity of the order in respect to grant a contract and could strike down the same on the basis of mala fide, unfairness and lack of transparency provided that challenge was promptly made and question of fact was not involved-No question of fact was involved in the case and the petitioner had not filed writ petition to enforce a contract
Writ could lie, if the act was without lawful authority and law had been violated which ingredients were available in the present case
Mala fide conduct of the department was apparent on the record and it could not be said that petitioner was not aggrieved person in the eye of law
Writ petition was accepted and the agreement entered by the department and its approval were contrary to law and having no legal force and were cancelled by High Court, in circumstances.