1999 PLP 3223 (MLD)
Messrs BASHIR AHMAD & CO. — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3223 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs BASHIR AHMAD & CO. — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3223 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3223 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3223 (MLD) (Messrs BASHIR AHMAD & CO. — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Art. 199---Claim for payment of amount for work done by petitioner for respondent---Constitutional petition---Competency---Petitioner, who had worked for respondent Authority, in his Constitutional petition had sought direction to respondent Authority, to make payment to him of long outstanding amount-- Respondent Authority though issued cheques for payment of amount to petitioner, but said cheques were not cleared on account of paucity of funds-- Respondent Authority had admitted claim of petitioner but failed to make payment to him for non-availability of funds---Paucity and non-availability of funds with respondent Authority, was no legal justification---If respondent Authority did not have any , funds, it should not have got work done from petitioner---Respondent Authority had raised preliminary objection to the effect that Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was incompetent as he had remedy of civil suit---Validity---Civil suit, no doubt, was proper remedy for recovery of disputed amount, but not only disputed amount having been admitted by respondent Authority, gut said amount was also paid through cheques to petitioner which remained uncashed due to non-availability of funds, objection with regard to incompetency of Constitutional petition, was mala fide and without merit in circumstances---High Court accepted Constitutional petition filed by petitioner and directed respondent Authority to clear amount of petitioner within specified period.
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A. G. for Respondents.
- 2. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate-General is present alongwith XEN, respondent No. 2, who has also filed the written statement. According to which the factual controversy is admitted. The explanation for non-payment is the non-availability of funds. The respondent has also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of civil suit.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A. G. for Respondents. Date of hearing 9th, December, 1998. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for direction to respondents to make the payment of long outstanding amount Rs. 9,24,
154. It is added that for different amounts even the cheques were issued. The same were presented but could not be cleared on account of paucity of funds. The cheques have been placed on the record as Annexures-"A" to "E". The petition was admitted to hearing on 12-11-1998. The notices were issued to the respondents.
2. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate-General is present alongwith XEN, respondent No. 2, who has also filed the written statement. According to which the factual controversy is admitted. The explanation for non-payment is the non-availability of funds. The respondent has also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of civil suit.
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments and gone through the record. The work was done by the petitioner during the period 1992 to 1997. It is admitted that the claim of the petitioner was examined and scrutinized by a high power committee and after recommendation of the committee special funds have been demanded to clear the liabilities The admitted position is that the amount has not been paid for the work done by the petitioner. The paucity and non-availability of funds with the respondent is no legal justification, moreso in a Islamic Democratic Country if the respondents did not have any funds then they should not have got the work done from the citizen. It is a simple and basic rule governing relationship between the citizen and the State.
4. Now I come to the preliminary objection of respondent to the effect that the petitioner has a remedy of civil suit. It is true that generally suit is the proper remedy for recovery of money but where the amount is admitted and even the amount was paid through cheques which were bounced by the Bank for lack of funds. There is no factual controversy involved. The preliminary objection is mala fide and without merit.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to clear the amount within one month and, in the meanwhile, they are restrained to make any payment or draw any amount except the salary till the amount of the petitioner is paid. H.B.T./B-59/L Petition allowed.