2006 PLP 1446 (YLR)
SAJJAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, TAUNSA SHARIF through Tehsil Nazim
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1446 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | SAJJAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, TAUNSA SHARIF through Tehsil Nazim |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1446 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1446 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1446 (YLR) (SAJJAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, TAUNSA SHARIF through Tehsil Nazim). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tajjamal Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.2(h)
Constitutional petition
Scope and competency
Commercial deal between parties was effected through a contract according to which petitioner was required to make payment of monthly instalments but he admittedly committed default in such payments
Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to discretionary constitutional relief on account of his own conduct
Matter was based on contract hence contention that appropriate remedy would be available to petitioner in a Court of preliminary civil jurisdiction, if contract in question was breached or violated had merit
Petitioner's contract, as per its conditions, could have been cancelled without notice hence admitted inadequacy of notice had no validity.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. has pointed out, firstly that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to discretionary constitutional relief. To support his contention, he has pointed out that although the contract for collection of Adda Parking Fee was executed by the petitioner on 28-6-2003 and, according to the 'terms thereof, he was required to make payment of the monthly instalment of Rs.1,52,345 on the first day of each month, the petitioner failed to abide by this material term. The petitioner did not make any payment in time. Instead on 20-10-2003, after a notice had been issued to the petitioner threatening cancellation of the contract, he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000 Even this amount was insufficient because, according to the terms of the contract, the amount payable by the petitioner was in excess of Rs.6,68,
960. Thereafter also the petitioner continued to commit default in payment of monthly instalments.
2. The default in payment of instalments is not disputed by the petitioner's learned counsel who has himself given me the dates and the amounts on which various payments were made by the petitioner to the T.M.A. These payments fall way short of the payments required under the contract. In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief on account of his own conduct, has merit.
3. Additionally, it is argued on behalf of the respondent T.M.A. that the matter between the petitioner and the T.M.A. is based on contract. The petitioner, therefore, can approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances if, indeed, the respondent T.M.A. has committed any breach of contract. This contention also in the circumstances, is well-founded.
4. As to the inadequacy of the notice, dated 9-2-2004, learned counsel for the T.M.A. concedes that adequate time was not given to the petitioner to deposit the amount set out in the notice. However, it is argued that even without the said notice the petitioner's contract could have been cancelled as per conditions of auction incorporated in the contract executed by the petitioner. In view of the conduct of the petitioner noted above, I am in agreement with this argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this lc petition is dismissed. F.B. /S-512/L Petition dismissed.