1999 PLP 3427 (MLD)
RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus D.C. — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3427 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus D.C. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3427 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3427 (MLD)?
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: 1999 PLP 3427 (MLD) (RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus D.C. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Contractual obligation-- Petitioner was a successful bidder in open auction to sell judicial papers and forms in District Court
Unsuccessful bidder also used to sell. judicial papers and forms in the same premises
Authorities did not extend necessary cooperation to petitioner against unsuccessful bidder
Petitioner contended that as Authorities had failed to abide by terms of contract as such, he was not liable to pay remaining amount of contract money and was entitled to refund of amount already deposited
Proceedings for enforcement of contractual obligation and compensation for breach of contract could not be enforced in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Contractual obligation or compensation for breach of contract
Such matters required investigation into cross-allegations and facts
Proper remedy was filing suit for appropriate relief
Constitutional petition was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Contractual obligation or compensation for breach of contract
Such matters required investigation into cross-allegations and facts
Proper remedy was filing suit for appropriate relief
Constitutional petition was not maintainable. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a successful bidder in open auction, for a contract to sell judicial papers and forms in the District Court, held in June, 1995. His case, in that he deposited Rs. 49250 on 17-7-1995 and started selling judicial papers. and forms on 1-7-1995. The petitioner claims, that the unsuccessful bider, also used to sell judicial papers and forms in the District Court, for which, they had no lawful authority. The petitioner claimed of his grievance to the concerned authority. He submits, that necessary cooperation was not extended by the respondents. In this back drop, the petitioner alleges A that he was not liable to pay the remaining amount of contract price as according to him the respondent had miserably failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. He further alleges, that on account of breach of contract by respondents, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 98,500
2. The review of case, made out in petition, reveals, that the petitioner seeks enforcement of contractual obligations and prays for relief on the allegation of breach of terms and conditions of the contract.
3. The proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be initiated to enforce contractual obligation or to seek compensation for the breach of the contract. Decision of such like question, will require investigation into cross-allegation and facts, which cannot be resorted to in these proceedings. The petitioner had adequate remedy, of filing a suit for appropriate relief. For the reasons above, this petition being not maintainable, is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./R-68/L Petition dismissed.