1994 PLP 1888 (MLD)

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks a direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kasur the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, not to harass the petitioner as a contractor of the canteen in the Sessions Court Complex, Kasai.

2. The facts in brief are that the canteen situated in the Sessions Court Complex was to be auctioned. Highest bid of the petitioner at Rs.90,000 was accepted, out of which he paid Rs.42,500 and the remaining account of Rs.47,500 was yet to be recovered. The petitioner approached the learned District and Sessions Judge Kasur, praying therein that he was unable to pay the balance amount, in that, due to general elections the Court did not function and during the flood the learned Additional District and Sessions Judges remained on flood duties. His assertion was found incorrect. The Courts continued functioning during the year even in the general election in November, 1988. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.3238 of 1989, which was dismissed in limine on 19-5-1991 with the observations "the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter and it was the duty of the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, to demand the balance of Rs.47,500 for which notices were issued to him. No harassment has been meted out to the petitioner. The petition is ex facie frivolous and false". This is a second petition on the same subject-matter, which is liable to be dismissed being hit by the principle of res judicata.

3. When faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the terms and conditions of the auction, the petitioner was required to construct the building at his own costs and on completion of his lease period, he would not he restrained to remove the superstructure etc. It is alleged that respondent No.2 has again auctioned the canteen and the contractor is using the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the contractor is Paying any rent nor respondent No.2 is allowing the petitioner to remove the superstructure of the canteen and is illegally harassing him with dire consequence. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the respondents be restrained not to harass him and respondent No.2 be directed to settle the accounts with the petitioner.

4. As pointed out above, this is a second petition on the same subject-matter and is liable to be dismissed on that account alone. Even on merits, the Petition would not succeed, in that, the grievance raised by the petitioner arises out of contractual obligations, which cannot be enforced through a Constitutional petition. Resultantly, the writ petition tails and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1620/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed