| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3123 |
WRIT PETITION NO.1561 OF 2025
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN) JUDGE
Petitioner by : Mr. Farooq H. Naek and Mr. Muhammad Waseem Abro, Advocates.
Respondents by : Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawad Advocate, for
Respondents No.1 & 2. Barrister M. Saad Buttar and Mr. Tahir Hussain Anchan Advocates, for
Respondent No.3. Dr. Nasir Khan, Chief Custom, Federal Board of Revenue. Mr. Saeed Ahmed Shaikh, D.G Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. Date of hearing : 16.07.2025
SAVE OUR SOCIETY (SOS FOUNDATION) OF PAKISTAN
VS
. PAKISTAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION, ETC
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 20, 26(a)
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section:
Case Summary
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare the second lease agreement dated 07.03.2025 between Pakistan Broadcasting Foundation (Respondent No.1) and Respondent No.3 as illegal. The petitioner argued that it had a valid 10-year Joint Venture (JV) Agreement (01.06.2023–30.06.2033) with Respondent No.1, under which it had invested over Rs.110 million in security deposits, renovation, and educational infrastructure. It alleged that the JV Agreement was unlawfully terminated without following the contractual notice requirements, that possession of the premises was illegally taken, and that execution of a fresh lease in favour of Respondent No.3 violated its contractual rights.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had committed serious defaults by failing to pay dues exceeding Rs.511 million, issued dishonoured cheques, and misrepresented facts regarding the establishment of the National University for Security Sciences (NUSS). They further argued that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit on the same subject matter, which was pending before the Civil Court, and had deliberately concealed this fact while invoking constitutional jurisdiction. They also maintained that the dispute was purely contractual, governed by an arbitration clause, and therefore not maintainable under Article 199.
The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the dispute arose out of contractual obligations under the JV Agreement, for which an adequate alternate remedy was already available before the Civil Court as well as through the agreed arbitration mechanism. The Court observed that the petitioner had concealed the pendency of the civil suit, making it disentitled to equitable constitutional relief. Since the parties had already approached the competent civil forum and the agreement itself contained an arbitration clause, the High Court declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition as misconceived.