PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

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

Citation
2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PLD
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, QUETTA S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 23---C; S. 23; Contract Act

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL RAZZAQ VS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, QUETTA S. 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199(1)(a)(i)--- Specific performance of agreement---Writ of mandamus, issuance of---Scope---Brother of the petitioner donated his land to the Education Department for up-gradation of local school for which an agreement was executed with the Education Department/respondents---Petitioner asserted that the consideration of said agreement was the employment of his (brother's) relatives with the respondents---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contending that he was not appointed by the respondents---Held, that the petitioner filed constitutional petition on the strength of an agreement, as such, the petitioner indeed had sought specific performance of agreement through writ of mandamus---In clause (i) of Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, the word "law" meant sub-constitutional piece of legislation; and the relevant law, in the present case, was S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872---Agreement-in-question was in violation of S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, being against the public policy as every agreement against public policy was void ,and as such, not enforceable---Respondents were not under obligation to perform the agreement under provisions of the S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, they could not be compelled to do an act which they were not required by the law to do---Petitioner was not an aggrieved party within meaning of Art. 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution because he had no legal grievance to maintain present constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English