Citation Name: 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SECRETARY, EDUCATIO

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL RAZZAQ VS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, QUETTA S. 21(9)---Contract Act (IX of 1872, S.23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199(1)(a)(i)---Specific performance of agreement---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Brother of the petitioner donated his ancestral land to the Education Department for upgrading of school and an agreement was executed with the Education Department and the consideration of the agreement was employment of relatives with the respondents (Education Department)---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contending that he was not appointed by the respondents despite favourable observations of concerned Complaint Redressal Committee (C.R.C)---Held, that apart from provisions under S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, regarding public policy etc., the agreement-in-question could not be specifically enforced/performed under S. 21(9) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as in the present case, the agreement appeared to be in perpetuity for all times to come, generation after generation---Such an agreement which had cast a duty of performance for a period longer than three years could not, therefore, specifically be enforced---Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, related to specific relief which could not be obtained in a civil suit---When a law for the time being enforced places an embargo on the jurisdiction of Court in certain circumstances as prescribed by S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, then such embargo could not be brushed away through invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---While exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 (1)(a)(i) of the Constitution, High Court could not direct respondents to do an act that they were not required by law to do (under S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 and S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877)---Observations of the C.R.C. in favour of the petitioner were passed on the basis of donation of land for the school, however, said observations in light of provisions of the law were illegal as such bore no binding effect upon the respondents---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, QUETTA S — 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD