| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 383 1993 SLD 383 1993 CLC 159 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Writ Pc t it ions Nos. 90 and 94 of 1992, decision dated: 27-10-1992
S. MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J
Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Petitioner (in Petition No. 94 of 1992). Advocate General and Sardar Rafique Mehmood Khan for
Respondents
Writ Pc t it ions Nos. 90 and 94 of 1992, decision dated: 27-10-1992
S. MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J
Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Petitioner (in Petition No. 94 of 1992). Advocate General and Sardar Rafique Mehmood Khan for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD FIAZ ABBASI and another
VS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT through Secretary, PWD AJ&K, Muzaffarabad and 4 others
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section: 44
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 2(h)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 0.1,R.10
(a) Amid Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)-- ----S. 44---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R. 10---Constitutional petition ---Misjoinder or non-joinder of parties---Effect---Provision of 0.1, R.10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being applicable to Constitutional petitions, misjoinder or non joinder of parties therein, could not defeat Constitutional petition. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 44---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2 (h)---Buildings and Roads Department Code, R. 2.65---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Advertisement for tenders for construction/completion of work, is not a proposal but is mere attempt to ascertain whether an offer could be obtained--Mere acceptance of a contractor's proposal would not amount to contract unless acceptance was signified by issuance of work order---Issuance of work order, however, would not debar an aggrieved person from calling into question authority of the person issuing such work order by illegal exercise of jurisdiction---Petitioner whose lowest bid was not accepted but respondents' higher bid was accepted, did not want to enforce contractual obligation through Constitutional petition but statutory duty imposed upon official respondents to do that which they were bound to do under .8.2.65, Buildings and Roads Department Code ---High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction was thus, bound to look into the propriety and legality of the decision of the official respondents---Constitutional petition was competent is circumstances. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 44---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2 (h)---Constitutional petition--Contractual case---High Court itself had imposed self-restraint not to entertain Constitutional petitions in contractual cases, otherwise, that was not a statutory rule; reason…
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