MST. KANEEZ NARGIS versus MILLAT TRACTORS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA ROAD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Article 199 High Court's constitutional jurisdiction declaring scope petitioner the owner of landed property, 10 new tractors were booked by the defendant, a dealer in the tractor company dealer said that four to five of the booking tractor booking history Provides within months. , But the applicant failed to supply / supply the tractors, even though the applicant had deposited the above mentioned tractors as per the demand of the dealer, on the failure of the dealer to supply / supply the tractors, the applicant signed The Dealer and Tractor Company filed a constitutional petition demanding the issuance of the writ, the dealer and tractor company objected to the substantial stability of the constitutional petition on the ground that the dealer is a private company and there is no person within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution. Against which mandamus writings could be issued. Harpati, a person who performs duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation, the province or the local auto and cannot be issued to any person who has complete control over the management of any institution / organization through the federation, etc., as stated in Article 199 of the Constitution. The most important prerequisite for determining that a person does not fall within the jurisdiction was that the person performing his duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation, etc., who has any decision in conducting such physical affairs. It must be in full control to do and end it, and it must have the exclusive, complete and final authority to make the final choice. Oh. The policy decision should be such control, absolute, impeccable, restless and exclusive. In addition, the state should also have financial control of the organization when the dealer is federated
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
