Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 135 of 1968, heard on 17th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 7‑2‑1968, in W. P. No. 208 of 1968).
Art. 98‑Breach of agreement Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salim Ahmad Malik, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th October 1968.
‑The petitioner Messrs Khan & Co., Lahore, moved the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitu tion to enforce its claim for lease of a plot of land situated at McLeod Road, Lahore, belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Lahore. The claim was based on a letter dated the 18th of August 1959 sent by the Administrator of the Corporation of the city of Lahore to Messrs Standard Vacuum Oil Company, informing it, that the Corporation had agreed to the lease of the plot in question in its favour. This letter, however, was with drawn by a subsequent letter dated the 29th of August 1960, in which it was stated that the plot in question could not be given on lease to the Company as it was a grassy plot and that the request of the Company for some alternative plot would be con sidered if made. The High Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that no right is disclosed in the petitioner to get the lease in question, as the initial agreement which was subsequently withdrawn was between the Corporation and the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, without the petitioner being a party to it.
The learned counsel contends that the petitioner was the beneficiary being a dealer of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company and that the plot was intended for its benefit for the installation of a petrol pump. It was also pointed out that in an earlier Writ Petition No. 1005/1958, filed by the petitioner, the Corporation had agreed to give an alternative plot to the principals of the petitioner namely the Standard Vacuum Oil Company resulting in the withdrawal of that writ petition. This again shows that the party directly affected is the "principals" namely the Standard Vacuum Oil Company and not the petitioner who was not privy to the agreement even though the agreement may have been for its benefit. It is also pointed out by the learned Judges of the High Court in their order that the order withdrawing the stipulation for lease was passed in the year 1960 and the writ petition which was moved 7 years later in 1967, obviously suffered from laches.
We feel that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was misconceived. At the highest it was a case of a breach of agreement for which the remedy did not lie in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer