Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 899 1997 SLD 899 = 1997 PLD 1
Sindh High Court

Presented By:

Law:

Section:

(a) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 178-A, 179 & 181---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.73---Constitution of Pakistan (1.973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alleged breach of contractual obligations---Alterations in building---Locus standi to challenge---Mere breach of a covenant could not be challenged in Constitutional petition---Alterations in building plan allowed by respondents or in terms of subsequent agreement executed by builder and one of the owners could not be challenged by petitioners for lack of locus standi---Petitioners could only claim such right if said alterations had violated any law or rules or by laws relating to construction or re-construction of buildings--- Petitioners having rested their case upon alleged breach of contractual obligations, same could not be enforced by filing Constitutional petition. Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust PLD 1969 SC 223 ref. (b) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 178-A, 179 & 181---Proposed alterations in building plan ---Validity-- where proposed alterations in building plan were permitted by law, as between petitioners and contesting respondents, there were no rights, even if petitioners could be deprived of certain facilities by permission granted by official respondents. (c) Maxim--- ------ Audi alteram partem"---Application---Principles of natural justice requiring hearing to be granted to concerned person before being condemned would apply not only to judicial but also quasi-judicial proceedings provided that application thereof, was nor specifically excluded by relevant statute. (d) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)=- ----S. 181---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition-- Natural justice, principles of---Obligation to serve notice upon petitioners before sanctioning alterations in building plan---Petitioners having claimed such right upon general principle embodied in maxim "audi alteram partem" and not under specific provision of any law, therefore requirements of law, if any, were satisfied when petitioners themselves forwarded their representations to respondent concerned. ---[Maxim "audi alteram…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register