2005 PLP 466 (MLD)

Amir Malik for Respondent No.

1. Bashir Ahmed for Respondent No.3. In this Constitutional petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:‑‑ A. Direct the respondent No.1 not to deduct and false mark‑up/interest from the salary of the petitioners father and husband as well as other several employees of respondent No. 1 as recovery agent of the respondent No.3. B. Direct the respondent No.2 to hold an inquiry against the respondent, No.3 for operating as illegal money lending company as well as, cancel or review the licence/NOC of respondent No.3. C. Direct the respondent No.3 to stop malpractice and illegal money lending business and return the illegally deducted interest/mark‑up to the employees of the respondent No.

1. D. Direct the respondents Nos.1 and 3 to get audit each and every corner to ascertain the actual outstanding amount and cancel the agreement between the respondents Nos. 1 and

3. E. Any other relief (s) under the circumstances mentioned above, the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. F. Cost of the petition. The brief facts of the case requisite for disposal of this Constitutional petition are that leasing contracts were entered into between the father of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 and the husband of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3. From perusal of the record, it tanspires that Senior Staff Association of respondent PIA extended facility of "Hire Purchase" of consumer goods for its staff/employees through respondent No.3. Father of petitioner No.1 Farooq Khan and husband of petitioner No.2 Ghulam Haider executed Hire Purchase Agreements as well as Demand Promissory Notes in favour of respondent No.3 and availed the facility of Hire Purchase consumer goods. By virtue of the Hire Purchase Agreements executed between Farooq Khan and Ghulam Haider and respondent No.3 deductions were required to be made from the salaries of the aforesaid two persons by way of monthly instalments towards repayment of the consumer goods purchased by them respectively. From perusal of the above facts, it is absolutely clear that both, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Petitioner No.1 is espousing the cause on behalf of her father and Petitioner No.2 is espousing the cause on behalf of her husband whereas under Article 199 of the Constitution a person cannot file a Constitutional petition to espouse the cause of another person. From the facts of the case, it is absolutely clear that Farooq Khan, father of petitioner No.1 and Ghulam Haider, husband of petitioner No.2 had entered into Hire Purchase Agreements with respondent No.3 whereby they had purchased consumer goods and the amount provided by respondent No.3 for the purchase of consumer goods was to be repaid by the above said two persons in monthly instalments. Grievances arising out of contractual obligations between private parties can neither be agitated in a Constitutional petition nor can be redressed. If any authority is required in support of the 'above proposition, the same is available from the case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi and others reported in 1998 SCMR 2268. In this case, the Supreme Court pronounced that routine contractual disputes between the private parties are not open to scrutiny under the Constitutional jurisdiction. Upon the above discussion, we find that this Constitutional petition is absolutely misconceived and not maintainable. Accordingly, it stands dismissed in limine alongwith the misc. application pending therein. M.B. A./H‑32/K Petition dismissed.