Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 294 of 1982, decided on 26th April, 1982.

Provisional constitution Order (I of 1981)‑:

‑‑ Art. 9 (I)‑Other remedies‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Payment to petitioner from S. A. S. O. department due for work contrac ted and completed‑S. M. L. A. and D. M. L. A. ordering S. A. S. O. not to release payment unless petitioner pays Rs.55,000 to M‑Petitioner also approaching Martial Law Authorities for release of payment‑Contract with S. A. S. O. entered into by "P" Co. as such‑Petition also filed by company ‑M approaching Martial Law Authorities and making efforts to get his share from payment to be released by S. A. S. O.‑Civil litigation between hl and A (partners) pending‑Dispute between partners, held of civil nature for which other remedies available under ordinary law and no justification for petitioner to invoke constitutional jurisdiction Payment ordered to be released to company as such.

A. Khaliq G. Ghani for Petitioner.

This Constitution Petition is filed by Messrs Peoples Goods Transport Company against 8 respondents, which include functionaries of S. A. S. p. Shahdadpur and S. M. L. A. and D. M. L. A., Headquarter 55 Brigade Hyderabad. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner firm had u contract with S. A. S. O. Department for transfer and labour for the years 1980 and 1981 which was duly completed and payment of Rs.4,45,503.60 was due in favour of the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this payment was not released on account of orders from respon dents No's'. 5 and 6 namely S. M. L. A. Headquarter 55 Brigade Hyderabad and D. M. L. A. Headquarter 55 Brigade Hyderabad. It is stated in the petition that S. A. S. O. has been ordered by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 named above not to release the payment unless petitioner pays Rs.55,000 to one person alleged to be Managing Partner of the petitioner. It is 'manifest from the contents of the petition that efforts have been made to show that this person is not known to the petitioner and reference to him has been made in the petition as alleged Managing Partner of the Petitioner Firm. At the same time memo of petition also shows that the petitioner had made representations and had sent telegrams to the C. M. L. A, D. M. L. A. and M. L. A. It is further stated that respondents 6 to 8 i.e. D. M. L. A. Headquarter 55 Brigade Hyderabad, M. L. A. Karachi and C. M. L. A. Rawalpindi replied that matter was of civil nature and directed petitioner to seek remedy accordingly. It is thus clear that the petitioner also has been approaching Martial Law Authorities for release of payment by S. A. S. O. One thing appears clearly from the memo off petition and other annexures filed therewith including correspondence with S. A. S. O. that contract in question with S. A. S. O. was entered into by Messrs Peoples Goods Transport Company as such and the petition is also filed by the company as such. In such circumstances the C payment is also to be released to the company named above as such. It also appears although petitioner does not say so specifically that Muhammad Yamin, Managing Partner of the said company has fallen out with Amirul Hassan Qureshi, who has filed affidavit in support of the petition before us stating therein that be is Managing Partner of the Company. That Muhammad Yamin has approached Martial Law Authorities for interven tion in the matter for payment of share in the assets of the company from Amirul Hassan Qureshi. There is a letter Annexure E with petition which is addressed by Deputy Director to Operational Director both of S. A. S. O. and this letter is dated 20th/21st September, 1931 Relevant contents of this letter are reproduced as under :‑

"Sub: Payment of Transportation charges to Messrs Peoples Goods Transport Co.

Enclosed herewith I am submitting copies of the below mentioned two letters received from the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, for your kind perusal and necessary guidance :‑

(a) Letter No. 111/GS‑17/LO (M L) dated 27th August, 1981, together with photo‑copy of the decision of arbitrators of Mr. Muhammad Yamin and Mr. Amirul Hassan and Photo‑copy of the partnership deed between Mr. Muhammad Yamin and Mr. Amirul Hassan Qureshi.

(b) Letter No.V III/GS‑23/LO (ML) dated 15th August, 1981 (received on 13th September, 1981 through the D. A, S. O. S. A. S. O. Sanghar letter No. DASOSASO/SHD/ A‑20/4831 dated 10th September, 1981), together with copy of application of Mr. Amirul Hassan Qureshi duly supported with 13 copies of various letters, documents.

As desired by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator Hyderabad, all these documents be kept in view while making payment of transportation charges to Messrs Peoples Goods TPT Company, Shahdadpur."

At the bottom of the letter it appears that copies have been sent to Mr. Amirul Hassan Qureshi and Mr. Muhammad Yamin son of Jiwani Khan Bhatti. This clearly shows that there is dispute between the part ners of the said firm and Muhammad Yamih approached the Martial Law Authorities and is making efforts that he must get his share from the payment which is to be released from S. A. S. O. No documents have been produced before us with regard to the partnership. On inquiry the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted before us that there is a civil litigation between the parties and Muhammad Yamin has filed a suit for arbitration and account against Amirul Hassan. 1t has further submitted that Amirul Hassan has not filed any suit for dissolution of partnership. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this appears to be dispute of civil nature for which suit has been filed in the civil Court which is pending and even other remedies are open in the civil Courts which can be taken recourse to. It would be pertinent to point out that petitioner had earlier filed in this Court Constitution Petition No. D‑35 of 1982 on exactly the same facts and grounds as contained in this petition and that petition was dismissed by this Court in limine vide order dated 18th February, 1982 by the same Bench. We dismiss this petition also in limine on the ground that there is available remedy under the ordinary law and there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

K.M.A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.