| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3279 = 1975 SLD 3279 = 1975 PLD 878 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 85 of 1975. decided on 20th June 1975.
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Jamaluddin H. Ahmed, JJ
Shamshad Ali Khan v. Commissioner, Lahore 1969 S C M R 122 and AI-Mahmood Industries (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Trading Corporation of Pakistan .Ltd. 1974 S C M R 51 rel. Khalid M. Ishaque for Petitioner. - Zafar Hussain Mirza, Advocate-General (Sind) for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. 85 of 1975. decided on 20th June 1975.
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Jamaluddin H. Ahmed, JJ
Shamshad Ali Khan v. Commissioner, Lahore 1969 S C M R 122 and AI-Mahmood Industries (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Trading Corporation of Pakistan .Ltd. 1974 S C M R 51 rel. Khalid M. Ishaque for Petitioner. - Zafar Hussain Mirza, Advocate-General (Sind) for
Respondents.
MIR RASOOL BUX KHAN SUNDRANI & Co. Petitioner
VERSUS
PEOPLE'S MUNICIPALITY, SUKKUR AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Municipal Committee Octroi Rules, 1969 R. 225-Lease of its right to collect octroi, export and toll taxes sanctioned by respondent for a certain period in petitioner's favour subject to condition of petitioners depositing in respondents' account daily average income worked out at a certain figure-Contention that since under r. 225 amount was payable in monthly instalments at close of each month, condition of daily payment was inconsistent with such provision-Held: Provision of rule about mode of payment-Not a negative provision, hence, not mandatory-Municipality could agree to any other mode of payment-Daily payment of instalments as agreed to by petitioner-Not in conflict with public policy nor adversely affecting spirit and purpose of rule. Mst. Nawab Bibi v. Rafiq Bano P L D 1971 S C 481 and Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., p. 369 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Courts in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction-Do not issue orders or directions for enforcement of contractual obligations-Nor can such jurisdiction be utilised for determining and enforcing such rights. It is well settled that Courts while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction do not issue orders or directions for the enforcement of contractual obligations nor can this jurisdiction be allowed to be used for the purpose of determining and enforcing such rights. A party who has entered into an agreement with another, cannot apply to the High Court for issuing a direction to enforce the terms of the agreement instead of approaching the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for necessary relief, and the High Court would be reluctant to exercise its powers when such other remedy is obviously available. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Agreement of parties providing for reference to arbitration but party aggrieved not going in for arbitra tion-Disputed questions of fact involved in case but person aggrieved not instituting civil suit for determination of such questions-Adequate alternate remedy being available, petitioner, held, could not invoke writ jurisdiction. Dates of hearing : 3rd, 18th and…