| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 2516 2003 SLD 2516 2003 CLC 471 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.24937 of 1997, decision dated: 28-08-2002.
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No.24937 of 1997, decision dated: 28-08-2002.
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ABDUL RASHID
VS
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) through Chairman, and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Procedure for WAPDA Bonds 6th Issue Bearer/Registered Regulations, 1994-------Cl. 8---Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.29---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.23, 24(1) & 199---Constitutional petition---Loss of Bonds and issue of duplicates---Petitioner lost Bonds alongwith profit coupons---Clause 8 of Regulations prohibited issue of duplicates in event of loss, theft, confiscation of bearer Bonds---Petitioner's request for issuing duplicate bonds was declined by WAPDA on the ground that such Bonds were bearer thus, their duplicates could not be issued--Validity---Clause 8 of the Regulations was -one of the conditions under which WAPDA had proceeded to sell bonds to public---Such clause was one of the conditions of transaction between parties and was in the realm of contract---If such clause/condition was allowed to prevail, petitioner would be deprived of his money for all time to come, unless by a stroke of luck, he was able to retrieve the lost Bonds---Such condition was expropriatory in nature and as such Court would not lean in favour of its validity---Such clause saved the issuer from fare claim---Nobody had claimed profit against Bonds lost by petitioner, but his genuine claim was being denied on the basis of C1.8 on alleged risk of a false claim being put up--Clause 8 was inequitable as the same gave undue advantage to issuer of Bonds over purchaser thereof---Issuer could not refuse to pay money to purchaser of Bonds, when Bonds were lost/destroyed permanently through fire, flood, earthquake, war and other calamities over which purchaser had no control, but. which were inherent risks of human living---Record had. not established that petitioner had ever learnt of or was made aware of -conditions of transaction particularly C1.8---Regulations were not statutory in nature, thus, C1.8 thereof had no statutory force---Article 23 of the Constitution would not be attracted---Such condition was, violative of protection provided under Art.24(1) of the Constitution--Bonds were a property and petitioner could be deprived of such property only in accordance with law---Clause 8 did…
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