Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1834 2005 SLD 1834 2005 PLD 248
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 875 of 1998, heard on 26th May, 2004
NASIM SIKANDAR, J
Waqar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Petitioner. Col. Muhammad Ramzan for
Respondents. Raja Iftikhar Javed Standing Counsel

Mst. NASEEM AFZAL

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi for 5 others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 199---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 126---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Contract of guarantee---Son of petitioner was selected to be admitted to B.Sc. Engineering course in Engineering College at Government's expenses and at the time of his selection for said course, a surety bond was executed by petitioner and her husband with the Authorities to the effect that if trainee/son of the petitioner would resign during training or within 13 years of his commissioned service after completion of engineering studies, petitioner would pay on demand all the training charges---Trainee/son of the petitioner after completing his studies was sent to, Pakistan Military Academy for undergoing military training for one year, but he was withdrawn from the Academy on certain allegations and thereafter petitioner and her husband were required to pay surety amount as a condition precedent for release of B.Sc. Engineering Degree obtained by their son---Petitioners challenged said order in Constitutional petition--­Maintainability of Constitutional petition was challenged by the Authorities on the ground that order in Constitutional petition could not be made concerning a person in respect of any action taken in relation to him as member of Armed Forces or as a person subject to such law--­Validity---Son of petitioner though as a Cadet of Pakistan Military Academy was subject to Army Laws, but matter in issue did not relate to any of his duties as a gentleman Cadet---Constitutional petition revolved around the denial of a civil liability by petitioner as a guarantor based upon a surety bond executed to ensure compensation/r-e-imbursement of official expenses in case `principal debtor' failed or refused to serve Army---Said matter would very well be a subject-matter of exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Since prayer of petitioner, had involved determination of factual controversies between parties, same could not be allowed in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--­Rights and liabilities of a `surety' the `principal debtor' or `creditor' under a contract of guarantee as contemplated in S.126 of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492