P L D 1961 Dacca 536 (PLP)
NALINI KANTA ROY‑Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
| Citation | P L D 1961 Dacca 536 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | NALINI KANTA ROY‑Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 Dacca 536 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 Dacca 536 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 Dacca 536 (PLP) (NALINI KANTA ROY‑Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- B. C. Das, and K. M. Subhan for Appellant.
- Md. Jani Alam, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Contract‑Entered into on behalf of Government‑To be enforceable, must be made in compliance with statutory provisions prescribing method by which such contract should be made
Government of India Act, 1935, S: 175‑Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art.
135. When a statute provides a particular method by which a contract should be made, there must be compliance with the provisions of the statute. Section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article.135 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1956) provide a particular method by which a contract should be made with the Government. Any contract with the Government, not made in accordance with the statutory requirements will not be enforceable. Firm Babu Munir Gulam Sadiq v. North‑West Frontier Pro vince Government and others P L D 1955 F C 410 and H. Young & Co. v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leamington LR8AC517rel: (b) East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948)‑Does not impose on Requisitioning Authority any duty to enter into contract with owner or occupier for purpose of requisitioning. The East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 does not impose any duty on the Requisitioning Authority to enter into any contract with any owner or occupier of the property for the purpose of requisition. The Act gives extraordinary power to the Government to n requisition a property for public purposes. It .will, therefore, be absurd to suggest that simply because, in a particular case, the authority acceded to the prayer of the tenant of a requisitioned house to give him an alternative accommodation, they undertook an obligation to provide him with an alternative accommodation so long as the requisitioned house remained, under requisition. No such undertaking can be implied from the conduct of the Requisitioning Authority. Raderiaktiebelaget Amohitrite v. The King L R 1921 3 K B 500 and Antonio Buttiagieg v. Captain Stephen H. Cross and others A I R 1947 P C 29 ref.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.
‑I agree.