Rana ZULFIQAR ALI vs S.H.O., C.B.C. F.I.A., MULTAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court Division Bench order which had dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal against a Single Judge's refusal to direct the registration of a criminal case against officials of the Small Business Finance Corporation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should intervene to enforce contractual obligations or direct the registration of a criminal case when the matter involves disputed facts and an ongoing inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, noting that the dispute involved contractual obligations and complex factual determinations unsuitable for writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Specific Relief Act 1877 would be rendered redundant if contractual disputes were routinely adjudicated through writ petitions. Furthermore, as the Federal Investigation Agency had already completed its inquiry into the petitioner's complaint, the Court directed the petitioner to await the outcome of those administrative proceedings rather than pursuing judicial intervention.
- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations involving disputed facts?
- Should the High Court direct the registration of a criminal case when an inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency is already pending?
- Does the availability of remedies under the Specific Relief Act 1877 preclude the use of writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes?
- Specific Relief Act 1877
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6-5-1996 dismissing the petitioner's appeal (I.C.A. No,44 of 1996) directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 10-4- 1996 whereby petitioner's request for registration of a case against the respondents/officials of Small Business Finance Corporation was declined with the observation that the petitioner having already moved an application to the Federal Investigating Agency "may approach the concerned Inquiry Officer and got the matter inquired if he is so advised." Feeling aggrieved, petitioner took the matter in appeal (I.C.A. No,44 of 1996) which, as stated above, has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide order dated 6-5-1996 holding that "The amount of finance if at all sanctioned in the sum of Rs,3 lacs was in the nature of contract. There was mutual obligations between the parties and the same entailed facts which were to be ascertained at each and every step by the loanee institution. If the contractual obligations are allowed to be enforced through the filing of the writ petitions, the Statute by the name of Specific Relief Act shall become redundant. This Court shall not assume the function of determination of disputed facts. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Deputy Attorney- General. The latter on our direction has contacted F.I.A., Multan and states that the F.I.A. Has since completed the inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and will submit the report to the F.I.A.
Headquarters, Islamabad within a week.
3. It appears that the proceedings on the petitioner's complaint before the F.I.A. Were pending when he filed the writ petition. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly disposed of the petitioner's writ petition with the direction that he may approach the inquiry officer in the F.I.A. And get the matter inquired into. Now that the inquiry has been completed by the F.I.A. Petitioner should better await the result of that inquiry. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.