2010 PLP 281 (YLR)
BLOCH KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government, Karachi and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 281 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan and Dr. Rana M. Shamim, JJ |
| Parties | BLOCH KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government, Karachi and 12 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 281 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 281 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan and Dr. Rana M. Shamim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 281 (YLR) (BLOCH KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government, Karachi and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nazeer Tanoli for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.D-1576 of 2007).
- Patras Piyara for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.D-1781 of 2007).
- S. Khursheed Hashmi for Respondent.
- After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record it appears that there is controversy in respect to the interpretation of the agreement dated 1st July, 2007 whereby, contract has been assigned to Abdul Khalique, Respondent No.10 for receiving an amount of Rs.150 from every milking animal i.e. (Cows and Buffaloes) entering the limits of Karachi. The petitioner in both, the petitions have contended that even after receiving that amount CDGK is receiving an amount from the petitioner in respect to milching animals at yearly basis which factual positions has been denied by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for CDGK, as according to him after entering of milching animal to Karachi limits no further amount is collected and that the contract has only been awarded as there were confusion in complaints towards the payment of licence fee, therefore, to stop that one time method has been adopted and that, too, through the contractor and in that way CDGK has also been benefited by handsome amount of Rs.4,50,00,000. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vaccination charges at the rate of Rs.50 from milching animal have also been received which the contractor has not been authorized.
- Mr. Khursheed Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent No.10 submits that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs.50 for vaccination as in terms of two letters dated 29-6-2007 certain restrictions have been placed upon him that he will be bound to check the health certificate and thereafter allow the entry of the animal within the limits of Karachi.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Interpretation of an agreement/contract
Controversy was in respect, to the interpretation of the agreement whereby contract had been assigned to respondent for receiving an amount of Rs.150 from every milking animal entering the limits of Karachi
Petitioner in both the petitions had contended that even after receiving that amount City District Government was receiving an amount from the petitioner in respect of said animals at yearly basis
Such factual position had been denied by the counsel for City District Government as according to him after entering of said animals in Karachi limits no further amount was collected; and that the contract had only been awarded as there was confusion in complaints towards the payment of licence fee to stop that
One time method therefore, had been adopted and that too through the Contractor
After the clarification from the counsel of City District Government, the Contractor was entitled to payment and to receive Rs.150 for each and every animal while entering in Karachi, was correct and same was upheld. Manzoor Ahmed for City District Government.
Judgment & Decree
After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record it appears that there is controversy in respect to the interpretation of the agreement dated 1st July, 2007 whereby, contract has been assigned to Abdul Khalique, Respondent No.10 for receiving an amount of Rs.150 from every milking animal i.e. (Cows and Buffaloes) entering the limits of Karachi. The petitioner in both, the petitions have contended that even after receiving that amount CDGK is receiving an amount from the petitioner in respect to milching animals at yearly basis which factual positions has been denied by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for CDGK, as according to him after entering of milching animal to Karachi limits no further amount is collected and that the contract has only been awarded as there were confusion in complaints towards the payment of licence fee, therefore, to stop that one time method has been adopted and that, too, through the contractor and in that way CDGK has also been benefited by handsome amount of Rs.4,50,00,
000. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vaccination charges at the rate of Rs.50 from milching animal have also been received which the contractor has not been authorized. Mr. Khursheed Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent No.10 submits that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs.50 for vaccination as in terms of two letters dated 29-6-2007 certain restrictions have been placed upon him that he will be bound to check the health certificate and thereafter allow the entry of the animal within the limits of Karachi. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel for CDGK has stated that both the letters dated 29-6-2007 do not appear on record of CDGK and have been obtained by fraud and even the person who has issued these letters has been subjected to disciplinary action and has been suspended. He submits that at the moment they are not encouraging the receipt of the health certificate fee and are making arrangements for procuring the medicines as well as vets. It appears that after the clarification from CDGK's counsel the contractor is entitled to payment and receive Rs.150 from each and every milching animal while entering in. Karachi is correct interpretation and his is being upheld. As far as the issue of receipt of Rs.50 is concerned, the contractor apparently is not entitled to receive as firstly both the letters above are seriously being disputed and secondly even in one of the letters it has been mentioned that the health clearance certificate to be issued by "Controlling Officer". Keeping these words in mind one cannot say that the health certificate can be issued by private persons or that the "Controlling Officer" can be an employee of the contractor even if these letters are relied upon then it can be interpreted that it was the duty of CDGK to arrange for vaccination of the animal through their Controlling Officer to ensure that vaccination has been effected and health certificate is issued, After above clarification nothing remains in these petitions and both are disposed of with observation in last para of this order. H.B.T./B-25/K Order accordingly.