P L D 2007 Supreme Court 298 (PLP)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This petition for leak to appeal is directed against the order dated 9-10-2003 whereby writ petition preferred on behalf of Mst. Parveen Akhtar (respondent) has been accepted.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that an amount of Rs.50,000 was invested by Mst. Parveen Akhtar (respondent) with United Bank Limited under "Uni Sona Scheme" on 18-7-1996 on the persuasion of Bank Authorities by means of a handbill/publication whereby an undertaking was given three times return within seven years. The commitment could not be honoured by the Bank as an amount of Rs.1,00,000 was returned on 19-9-2003 in spite of Rs.1,50,000 which is the claim of the respondent. The petitioner got redressed her grievances by invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction. It was directed vide order impugned by the learned Single Judge in Chambers relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below that commitment made in the "Hand Bill" issued by the United Bank Limited i.e. "you earn 26 per cent per annum and triple your investment in 7-1/2 years" must be honoured":-- "On the face of the circumstances, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has weight as the bank authorities are bound to honour their commitment as incorporated in their handbill Annex. B. Its term reads as under:-- "You earn 26 % per annum and triple your investment in 7 years" I accordingly direct respondent No.1 to look into the grievance of the petitioner on a fresh representation to be filed by the petitioner within a week's time and to redress the same within a period of one month from the date of conveyance of this order to him. Learned Additional Advocate-General, present on Court's call, will ensure that these orders are complied. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of."

3. Heard Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly argued that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended emphatically that the contractual obligation could not have been enforced by invoking a constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(a)(i) as no writ could have been issued against United Bank Limited being a public limited company which is not controlled and managed by the Federal Government or Provincial Government and is not performing any functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority. It is argued that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner causing serious prejudice against it. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (respondent) remained absent in spite of service.

4. We have carefully examined the above-noted contentions canvassed at bar by Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners, perused the available record as well as order impugned. A bare perusal of the order impugned would reveal that it has been passed in a casual and cursory manner without having gone through the nature of controversy and affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also ignored that by now it is well-settled that "contractual rights and obligations have to be enforced through Courts of ordinary jurisdiction. The High Court in exercising its writ jurisdiction will be loath to interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations. The normal remedy at law being a suit for the enforcement of contractual rights and obligations, the High Court will not grant relief under Art. 199 merely for the purpose of enforcing contractual obligations notwithstanding the very extensive nature of the power of the High Court under that Article. (Muzafaruddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1968 SCMR 1136) Momin Motor Co. v. R.T.A. Dacca (PLD 1962 SC 108), Muhammad Ramzan v. Secretary Local Government, Government of Punjab (PLD 1987 Lah.262), Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Ltd v. Pak. WAPDA (PLD 1986 Quetta 181), Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. District Magistrate Tippera (PLD 1958 SC 267), Chattar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1953 Punjab 239) Raghavendra Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (AIR (39) 1952 Vindhya Pradesh 13). We are conscious of the fact that "where rights are based on statute law or rules framed thereunder or when an obligation or duty vests in a public functionary or a statutory body, performing functions in relation to the affairs of the federation or a province are a local authority, constitutional jurisdiction can be attracted. In such situations even contractual rights and obligations may be enforced in constitutional jurisdiction. This, however, is subject to the important rider of corresponding absence of an adequate remedy."

5. The following points ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge to set the controversy at naught: (i) Whether the contractual obligation between the private parties could have been enforced by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan? (ii) Whether the writ could have been issued against United Bank Limited being a public limited company which is not controlled by the Federal Government or Provincial Government and having nothing to do with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority? (iii) Whether the investment was made by the respondent on loss and profit share basis or otherwise?

6. We have been informed that various cases of similar nature are pending adjudication before the learned High Court and therefore we are deliberately withholding our comments on merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. The petition is converted into appeal and accepted. The Writ Petition bearing No.14095/2003 preferred on behalf of respondent shall be treated as pending and C decided afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law and on merits within a period of three months. M.H./Z-2/S Case remanded.