2021 PLP 1553 (CLC)
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY through Member Finance — Petitioner Versus NAZIR A.M. JOINT VENTURE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1553 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY through Member Finance — Petitioner Versus NAZIR A.M. JOINT VENTURE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1553 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1553 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1553 (CLC) (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY through Member Finance — Petitioner Versus NAZIR A.M. JOINT VENTURE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Kashif for Respondent No.1.
- Faizan Azhar for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scope
Appellant challenged the order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby all the actions for recovery of excess amount paid to respondents were set aside
High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction abstained from interfering in matters entailed resolution of disputed and controversial facts
Challenge before the Single Judge of High Court was regarding two letters both of which simply required the officer of the appellant to recover the amount from the respondents in view of certain observations carried out during the audit proceedings
Decision of Public Accounts Committee was merely confined to directing the initiation of proceedings for recovery and nothing more
Appeal was allowed, in circumstances and the impugned order was set aside
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and brings a challenge to the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and do not find the impugned order to be sustainable on various grounds. Firstly, the matter relates to the contractual obligation in respect of which this court in its Constitutional jurisdiction abstains from interfering as such matters entail resolution of disputed and controversial facts. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was regarding two letters both of which simply required the officer of the appellant, NHA, to recover the amount from the respondents in view of certain observations carried out during the audit proceedings. No further steps have been taken by the appellant which could have compelled this court to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the respondents. It is the Constitutional right of a person to invoke any remedy provided by law for recovery of the dues under the contract and no impediment can be placed by this court for certain remedy to be pursued and not any other remedy. The choice is always with the litigant and it would be unreasonable to shackle that choice on the part of this Court even if a direction had been issued by the Public Accounts Committee. The appellant could only have proceeded in accordance with law and as per the remedies that any statute provided under which recovery of alleged dues could have been made. Until those steps had been put in motion no interference could have been made to pre-empt the right of the appellant to proceed under one or the other statute or to seek certain remedy under the law upon consideration of the impugned letters which merely narrated that PAC had required to proceed for recovery of the amount due to NHA under the contract which was not an illegal demand. Thereafter, it fell upon the NHA to select the remedy which was suited under the circumstances. We are constrained to observe that any proceeding initiated against the respondents shall be under the law and satisfy the due process prescribed by the statutory as well as Constitutional regime. There is no denying that any decision by PAC is unlikely to impinge upon the adjudication of the claim by a court of law which shall be undertaken independently. Also, the decision of PAC was merely confined to directing the initiation of proceedings for recovery and nothing more.
3. This appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. SA/N-13/L Appeal allowed.