1993 PLP 159 (CLC)

(a) Amid Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R. 10‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Misjoinder or non‑joinder of parties‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Provision of 0.1, R.10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being applicable to Constitutional petitions, misjoinder or non joinder of parties therein, could not defeat Constitutional petition. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2 (h)‑‑‑Buildings and Roads Department Code, R. 2.65‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑ Advertisement for tenders for construction/completion of work, is not a proposal but is mere attempt to ascertain whether an offer could be obtained‑ ‑Mere acceptance of a contractor's proposal would not amount to contract unless acceptance was signified by issuance of work order‑‑‑Issuance of work order, however, would not debar an aggrieved person from calling into question authority of the person issuing such work order by illegal exercise of jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner whose lowest bid was not accepted but respondents' higher bid was accepted, did not want to enforce contractual obligation through Constitutional petition but statutory duty imposed upon official respondents to do that which they were bound to do under .8.2.65, Buildings and Roads Department Code ‑‑‑High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction was thus, bound to look into the propriety and legality of the decision of the official respondents‑‑‑Constitutional petition was competent is circumstances. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2 (h)‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Contractual case‑‑‑High Court itself had imposed self‑restraint not to entertain Constitutional petitions in contractual cases, otherwise, that was not a statutory rule; reason for such restraint being that in such like cases, detailed inquiry into the terms of agreement was involved, which would need evidence and elaborate inquiry‑‑‑Where, however, authority of the Government or any of its departments in granting the contract was challenged or brought into dispute, High Court could not be inhibited from examining the validity of the action of Government or of its departments, in its extraordinary jurisdiction. Azad Kashmir Government v. Neelam Floor Mills and others 1992 SCMR 431 rel. (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Alternate remedy even if available, remedy by way of Constitutional petition could not in every case be denied, unless such remedy was inexpensive, expeditious and beneficial. PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 77 ref. (e) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 44‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑High Court would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in those cases where complicated questions of fact were involved which cases were left to be resolved by Civil Courts‑‑ Where, however, error of fact was so apparent and self‑speaking that discretion or power exercised by subordinate authority seemed perverse, vicious and capricious, High Court would intervene in its Constitutional jurisdiction. PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 113; PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 120; PLD 1986 Azad J&K 1 and PLD 1969 Kar. 401 rel.