Hafiz MISBAHUL HASAN vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL OF SUPPLIES

ORDER

1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, 7.-The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent cancelling his contract and for consequential reliefs. The respondent had invited a tender for disposal of the scrap of m. v. Isabena. The tender offered by M/s. Abdul Razzak and Mohammad Munsha, was accepted and contract was awarded to them by the respondent in terms of letter, dated 8th November, 1977. Messrs Abdul Razzak and Mohammad Munsha hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractors' scrapped 200 tons and remitted a pay order of Rs, 1,88,000 being its price, calculated at the contracted rate of Rs, 940 per ton. The said contractors continued the work and the respondent extended the time for completion of the job upto 30th September, 1981 with a condition that they would deposit Rs, 1,00,000 as security which shall be forfeited in case the job was not completed by 30th September, 1981. This condition was accepted by the Contractors who appointed petitioner as their agent/representative or attorney to complete the job. The petitioner has alleged that he paid Rs, 50,000 to K.P.T. Who allowed him to break the vessel and remove the dismantled material from the site. However, the respondent through one of its officers Mustafa Hassan asked the petitioner to deposit 1/5th of the total amount payable under the contract. The petitioners requested to allow him to deposit to the extent of the price of 100 tons of scrap which had been dismantled but this request was not accepted and even the delivery order of 70 tons of scrap which was ready for delivery was not issued. The petitioner made several representations and offered to pay price of 100 tons of scrap but no reply was received in spite of reminders sent to the respondent. The respondent however issued a notice in a newspaper, dated 7th November, 1982 calling upon the Contractor to explain why the contract should not be cancelled and earnest money forfeited as he had failed to complete the job within the specific period. The petitioner sent a reply explaining the facts and 'circumstances but the respondent by its letter dated 13th February, 1982 cancelled the contract forfeited the amount of Rs, 1,00,000 and also threatened to recover damage from the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that the action of the respondent is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority.

2. ' From the statement of facts as stated by the petitioner it is clear that the dispute between the parties relates to a commercial transaction in respect of a contract for breaking and selling the scrap of m. v. Isabena. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has not fulfilled its part of the agreement and the delay in performance was caused due to default committed by the respondent. In these circumstances the petitioner has sought relief that the cancellation of contract and forfeiture of security is illegal and further that the respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to specifically perform the contract.

3. The petitioner is seeking relief to enforce the obligations arising from a contract between the parties. In effect the petitioner's prayer is to' declare that the respondent should specifically perform the contract. It is well settled that a breach of contract or failure to honour obligations arising out of an agreement cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is reluctant A to interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations. The right claimed by the petitioner and its denial by the respondent are based on contract and such contractual rights cannot be determined in constitution petition, Even otherwise the contract in dispute relates to breaking of vessel and sale of scrap. From its nature and subject-matter it is a contract for sale of goods and under law specific performance of such a contract cannot be granted. Reference can be made to PLD 1977 Kar. 21 and 1980 CLC 1228. In these circumstances the petition is dismissed in limine.