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. 59‑D of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan Dacca, dated the 16th March 1970, in Petition No. 78 of 1970).
Art. 98‑Writ‑Question raised being controversial question of fact requiring investigation and proof Did not fall within writ jurisdiction‑ Writ petition, held, rightly dismissed.
S. M. Husain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdur Rab‑II, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970.
The petitioner‑Company Landale and Morgan (Pakistan) Ltd., claimed by a writ petition in the High Court of East Pakistan, that the respondent has withheld from it, without lawful authority, the subsidy to which it was entitled under the instructions issued by the Government for sales made by it as shippers of raw jute, in pursuance of contracts expressed in sterling, to certain firms in London and New York.
According to the impugned letter of the Jute Board dated the 24th of August 1968 (Annexure B'), the subsidy was denied to the petitioner‑Company, as it did not satisfy one of the conditions for the grant of that subsidy, viz. that "the sales are not from agents to principals". The Jute Board came to this conclusion against the petitioner on examining the agency agreements that were furnished by the petitioner. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition on ground of laches and delay in filing the petition after almost one and a half years of the accrual of the cause for action, observing that the delayed remedy sought in the High Court in writ jurisdiction showed that there was no urgency about it, and that the matter could appropriately have been taken to the civil Court for relief in the ordinary course.
The question raised in the writ petition was a controversial one of facts as to the status of the petitioner‑Company qua the consignees of the shipment, which required investigation and proof, and did not fall appropriately within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The writ petition was rightly dismissed.
This petition is also dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer