Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SA. KAZMI VS Respondent: KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYHonorable Justice SAE EDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUISibghatullah Hamid,S.H. Kizilbash
1988 M L D 614
1988 M L D 614
[Karachi]
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
SA. KAZMI Petitioner
versus
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent
Constitutional Petition No. D‑723 of 1982, decided on 1st December, 1987.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Dispute over allotment of plots‑-Nature of dispute raised in petition being about enforcement of contractual liability of the respondent‑‑Remedy under Art. 199 was misconceived‑‑Petition dismissed.
Sibghatullah Hamid for Petitioner.
S.H. Kizilbash for Respondent.
Date of hearing. 1st December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
SAE EDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This petition under section 9 of Provisional Constitution Order 1981 is filed by the petitioner to challenge the Governing Boy's Resolution No, 338 dated 7‑6‑1981 of respondent as without lawful authority and illegal. By the impugned resolution, the respondent decided to refund the 10 per cent ad hoc payment deposited by the petitioner with the respondent for allotment of flat site and residential plots. The case of the petitioner is that by Resolution No. 154 dated 2‑5‑1973 the respondent allotted one flat sits in Gulshane Iqbal Scheme No. 24 and 10 residential plots in D.P. Township: The respondent on the other hand contends that there was no allotment of flat site or residential plot in favour of petitioner by the aforesaid resolution It was only a proposal and as the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment the proposal was withdrawn and later on it was decided to refund the amount paid by the petitioner. Firstly from the letter dated 22‑5‑1973 which is relied by the petitioner as an allotment of flat site and 10 residential plots, it is quite clear that neither the number of the flat site and the residential plots, nor their location and sizes are mentioned in that letter. In these circumstances this document cannot be treated as an allotment order. Apart from it the facts alleged in the petition are disputed by the respondent and on the basis of the material available before us it is not possible to determine these facts conclusively. The respondent is also alleging contravention of the terms and conditions of the allotment by the petitioner. From the nature of dispute raised in the petition it appears to be a case of enforcement of contractual liability of the respondent for which the remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution is misconceived. We therefore find no case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and dismiss this petition. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
S.Q./S‑215/K
Petition dismissed.