2008 PLP 533 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus TOWN NAZIM, NORTH NAZIMABAD, KARACHI and others-Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 533 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus TOWN NAZIM, NORTH NAZIMABAD, KARACHI and others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 533 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 533 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 533 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus TOWN NAZIM, NORTH NAZIMABAD, KARACHI and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Javed for Petitioner.
- Fazal-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Petitioner had contended that he had completed the entire work, but bills were not paid by authorities
Authorities were claiming heavy damages on account of his alleged sub-standard work
Authorities had denied the allegation made in the petition and stated that petitioner was not entitled to any relief
Quality of work was also disputed,--Points involved in the petition required resolution of factual controversy as to the quality of work and as such entitlement of petitioner could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner claims creation of hindrances in completion of work carried out by him and 5% work is not allowed to be carried out. For which the restriction order is sought. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has completed the entire work and the bills are not paid. According to learned counsel the respondents are claiming heavy damages on account of his sub-standard work. Respondents have denied the allegation made in the petition and stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Quality of work is also disputed whether the petitioner is entitled for amount in respect of work carried out by him or otherwise is question of fact. Points involved in this petition require resolution of factual controversy as to the quality of work and his entitlement cannot resolve in writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed along with listed applications. However, the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy in other forum if so advised. H.B.T./M-201/K Petition dismissed.