2021 YLRN 114

SALAMAT JAN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit

Citation2021 YLRN 114

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Malik Haq Nawaz, C.J. and Ali Baig

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.--- Through the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Self Governance Order 2018 read with enabling articles of Constitution of Pakistan 1973 the petitioner named above has knocked the door of this court seeking recovery of duty claim of Rs.54,30,540/- from the respondents against his vehicles used by the respondents to maintain law and order situation in District Gilgit and for internal security. The petitioner has further sought that retention of petitioner's bill by the respondents due to NAB inquiry against Mr. Javed Hussain is illegal and without lawful authority. The petitioner has lastly sought that the respondents be directed to release the duty claims of the petitioner forthwith otherwise he will suffer financial losses.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the respondents hired several private vehicles of different individuals including the present petitioner during the worst law and order situation in District Gilgit in the year 2005 to 2014 to maintain law and order situation and internal security. The petitioner's vehicles bearing No. GLT-85 TZ Prado, GLT-86 Five door, GLT-192 Double Door Pick up and AST-400 Double Door were allegedly hired by the respondents for the said purpose for the year 2012-13. The petitioner submitted bill of Rs. 54,30,540/- but the respondents stopped the rent of the petitioner's vehicles with reference to a letter bearing No. R-501329/2014/INQ/ GB 11122015 / Mark / 017 dated 13th January 2016 issued by the NAB to the Deputy Commissioner Gilgit regarding NAB inquiry against one Javed Hussain as according to the present petitioner he has nothing to do with the NAB inquiry against Javed Hussain. The petitioner has therefore sought from this court that the respondents be directed to release the outstanding amount of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's vehicles bearing No. GLT-85 TZ Prado, GLT-86 Five Door, GLT-192 Double Door Pick up and AST-400 Double Door were hired by the respondents to maintain law and order situation in District Gilgit for the year 2012-13. The petitioner submitted bill of Rs. 54,30,540/- but the respondents stopped the rent of the petitioner's vehicles with reference to a letter bearing No. R-501329 /2014 / INQ/GB/11122015/Mark/017 dated 13th January 2016 issued by the NAB to the Deputy Commissioner Gilgit regarding NAB inquiry against one Javed Hussain but the present petitioner has no concern with the NAB inquiry against Javed Hussain nor the said person is petitioner's co-owner but the respondents have stopped the payment without any plausible reason. He further argued that the above named person Mr. Javed Hussain had filed Writ Petition No. 32/2016 before this court and this court has decided the same in favor of Mr. Javed Hussain so, the stoppage of petitioner's amount on pretext of NAB inquiry against Javed Hussain is illegal and without lawfull authority. He further submitted that the petitioner has time and again presented his grievances before the respondents but remained fruitless therefore this honorable court may redress the grievances of the petitioner in the greater interest of justice, law and equity.

4. Conversely, the learned A.A.G opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the respondents have not stopped the payment of the petitioner. The payment of the petitioner will be made after fulfilling all the codal formalities but the amount claimed by the petitioner is yet to be determined. He further submitted that there is dispute between the parties on the amount claimed by the petitioner which needs pro and contra evidence which cannot be lead before this honorable court in summary proceedings. So, the petitioner should approach the court of competent jurisdiction to determine the fact that how much amount is due on the respondents.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. Since, the petitioner has sought recovery of Rs. 54,30,540/- from the respondents against his vehicles used by the respondents to maintain law and order situation in District Gilgit from the year 2005 to 2014 while the respondents have stopped payment of the rent/ outstanding amount to the petitioner. We, without going into the merits of the case. Prima-facie, the case needs pro and contra evidence which cannot be lead in summary proceedings before this Court. Hence, we deem it just and proper to direct the learned counsel for the petitioner to approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction/Civil Court Gilgit if he is so advised, because the claim of the petitioner is yet to be determined which needs pro and contra evidence before the court of competent jurisdiction/ Civil Court Gilgit.

7. The instant petition stands dismissed but the petitioner is at liberty to file a civil suit for recovery of his dues in the Court of competent jurisdiction. File.

SA/23/GB Petition dismissed.