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.
Writ Petition No. 4044 'of 1983, decided on 13th November, 1983.
‑‑ Art. 9‑Companies Act (VII of 1913)‑Writ jurisdiction‑Private'" limited Company standing registered under Companies Act, 1913 working on commercial considerations without any financial assistance from Federal or Provincial Government, held, cannot be regarded as a person amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 9, even if such a Company has been declared as an official development agency for purpose of development of a Housing Scheme in its capacity as contractors.
Salah‑ud‑Din etc. v.. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. P L D 1975 S C 244 rel.
Ch. Irshad Ullah Chatha for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 13th November, 1983.
This Constitutional Petition assails the order passed by respondents cancelling plots Nos. 21/C, 26/C and 27/C from the names of the petitioners on account of non‑deposit of the development charges. The respondents in this case are National Construction Company, The Mall, Lahore ; Director of the said Company and Administrative Officer of the said Company.
2. Under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, an order in the nature of writ of certiorari quo warranto and mandamus can be passed by the High Court against a person performing "within territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. Similarly, an act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority may be declared by the High Court to have been done or taken without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect."
3. Admittedly the National Construction Company is a limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The other two respondents are its employees. This Company performs functions of a Construction Company on commercial basis. The Federal or the Provincial Government have no administrative control over the affairs of this Company and in no manner National Construction Company is financed by the Federal Govern ment or the Provincial Government.
4. In Salah‑ud‑Din etc. v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975SC244,) it was observed: ‑
The primary test must, always be whether the functions entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power; whether the control of the organization vests in a substantial manner in the hands of Government ; and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State. If these conditions are fulfilled, then the person, including a body politic or body corporate, may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province ; otherwise not." , .
5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the National Construction Company has been notified as an official development agency under the‑ Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 and as such is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. The learned counsel, however, could not tell as to what functions were being performed by the National Construction Company as an official development agency. A private limited Company like the respondent Company which stands registered under the Companies Act and works of commercial considerations without any financial assistance from the Federal or a Provincial Government cannot be regarded as a person amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Even if such a Company has been declared as an official development agency for the purpose of development of a Housing Scheme in its capacity as contractors.
7. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that the Constitutional petition against the respondents is not legally competent and it is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer