1993 PLP 2226 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Constitutional petition could not be maintained for enforcement of any contractual liability. Riaz Hussain Baloch for Petitioner. AA. Mohammadally, AA: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1992. MAMOON KAZI, J: ‑‑We propose to dispose of these two Constitutional petitions together as the same questions of law and facts are involved therein.

1. The petitioner in each of these petitions is aggrieved by the Circular dated 19‑4‑1983 issued by the Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Limited, the respondent No.4 in this petition, of which the petitioner is a sub‑lessee/tenant. The said circular calls upon all the tenants of respondent No.4 to pay revised water charges at the rate of Rs.756 per 1,000 gallons with effect from the date on which the Karachi Water Sewerage Board, the respondent Not in this petition, revised its bulk water supply rates. Such rates were revised with effect from 21‑5‑1981. It may be pointed out that a Notification dated 30‑3‑1981, was issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, the respondent No.l revising water rates while purportedly exercising powers under subsection (2) of section 62 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 in pursuance of the directions given by the Government of Sindh.

2. Counter‑affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos2 and

4. According to the counter‑affidavit filed by respondent Not, the said respondent is supplying water in bulk to respondent No.4 and the petitioners have no direct link with the respondent. There appears to be no controversy in this regard. Admittedly the petitioners have a contractual relationship with the respondent No.4, because as pointed out earlier, they are its tenants. It has been held time and again by this Court that no Constitutional petition can be maintained for enforcement of any contractual liabilities. Admittedly the main grievances of the petitioners is against respondent No.4. No doubt, the Notification, dated the 30Th March, 1981, was issued by respondent No.l in pursuance of the directions ';Me Government of Sindh, the respondent No.3 in this petition, but so far as the petitioners are concerned, admittedly their grievance arose not when the said notification was issued but after further action was taken by the respondent No.4, as just pointed out. In fad, the petitioners have not challenged the said Notification in this petition. When Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, their learned counsel was confronted with this position he was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation.

3. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no force in these two petitions and the same are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own expenses. H.B.T./P‑275/K Petitions dismissed.