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.
[Lahore]
Before Fazl-i-Mahmood, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner
versus
WAPDA-Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3297 of 1982, decided on 19th December, 1982.
-- S. 37-Contractual rights between K and WAPDA-Effect of devolution of K's land on S and others-Original electric connec tion in name of K who held eight acres of land-After K's death, those eight acres of land devolving on S and two others having other land as well-Held, other holdings of S and others not to change nature of contract between K and WAPDA and A and others may approach WAPDA in their own independent right for their own genuine need-Held further, nothing can be based on rights created by contract between K and WAPDA-Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9.
Muhammad Akram Khokhar for Petitioner.
Khan Muhammad Virk for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. .
M. A. Aziz for Respondent No. 4.
Date of hearing:19th December, 1982.
The original electric connection was in the name of Muhammad Akram son of Abdul Haq who has since died.
2. After the death of Muhammad Akram, now an application has been moved on behalf of Muhammad Aslam and two others. The land held by Muhammad Akram deceased was only eight acres in whose favour this connection was sanctioned. The mere fact that the persons on whom those eight acres have devolved have other holdings would not change the nature of the contract entered into by Muhammad Akram with WAPDA. If the petitioners have their own genuine need they may approach the WAPDA in that behalf in their own independent right but nothing can be based on the rights created on contract in favour of Muhammad Akram. This petition is now being conceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the WAPDA authorities are trying to indulge into favouritism by not charging the proper dues from respondent No. 4. This is a matter involving the revenue of the WAPDA and it is-to be looked into by the WAPDA authorities themselves at their own departmental level. The petitioners would have no locus standi in the matter.
4. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
K.M.A. Petition disposed of.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer