MUHAMMAD HASHIM and others vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Karachi and others
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed by an Octroi contractor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose contract period had already expired, was entitled to specific performance of the contract, and whether the dismissal of the constitutional petition precluded the petitioner from pursuing other legal remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that specific performance could not be granted because the contract had expired, rendering the petition infructuous. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the constitutional petition on the ground of it becoming infructuous did not extinguish the petitioner's right to seek other appropriate legal remedies available under the law against the respondents. The key principle laid down is that the dismissal of a constitutional petition as infructuous due to the expiry of a contract does not bar a party from pursuing alternative legal avenues for relief.
- Does the dismissal of a constitutional petition as infructuous due to the expiry of a contract prevent a party from seeking other legal remedies?
- Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract that has already expired?
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioners in these two petitions have called into question the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, dated 28-10-1998. The circumstances of the case indicate that, Muhammad Hashim, who is the petitioner in C.P.L.A. No,748 of 1998 had been, by an agreement, appointed Octroi contractor for the period from 1-4-1996 up to 31-3-1997 to collect octroi on goods imported by Sandoz (Pak.) Ltd., who are the petitioners in C.P.L.A. No,764 of 1998. Subsequently, the petitioner, Muhammad Hashim, sought declaration from the High Court of Sindh through Constitutional Petition No,523 of 1996 to the effect that he was the lawful holder of octroi lease for the said period. The said petition was however, dismissed as it was, inter alia, found that the contract entered into by the petitioner had already expired.
2. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although, there can be no cavil with the view expressed by the High Court after the period of validity of the said contract had already expired, the petitioner, Muhammad Hashim, was not entitled to specific performance of the said contract but, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner should have been permitted to seek other legal remedies against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 which were available to him under the law. The view expressed by Mr. Akhtlaq Ahmad Siddiqui learned Advocate-on- Record appearing for the other petitioners also does not appear to be different.
3. In view of the circumstances of the case although, the petitions were dismissed as having become infructuous, but the right of the petitioners to seek any other appropriate remedy available to them under the law cannot be denied to them.