HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---The petitioner donated 20/A kanals of land to the Provincial Government with the condition that when the Education Department will construct the Government School and education will commence in the school the Department will accommodate the children of the petitioner's family as Class-IV employees. In this respect an Iqrarnama was executed and signed by the then DEO. This Iqrarnama was allegedly executed between the parties on 11-2-1997; that the petitioner repeated his demand and even sent applications to respondents through post.
Through this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the implementation of the said agreement.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted whether this Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to implement any agreement between the parties or appropriate remedy is a suit for specific performance of the contract, he could not reply satisfactorily.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the said Iqrarnama appears to be invalid and unlawful as no government official can strike such a deal for recruitment of employees in the Government department. Secondly if there is violation of any terms and conditions, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil suit before the court of competent jurisdiction, because for the enforcement of contractual liability the appropriate forum is the civil court. For this view, I am guided by the principle laid down in the judgments reported as Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation v. Pak. WAPDA (PLD 1987 Lahore 262), Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. District Magistrate Tippesa (PLD 1986 Quetta 181), Zonal Manager v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar and another (PLD 2007 SC 298), Muzaffar-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1968 SCMR 1136) and Momin Motor Company v.
Regional Transport Authority (PLD 1962 SC 108). In all these cases supra, it is held/observed that contractual rights and obligations have to be enforced through courts of ordinary jurisdiction. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction will be loath to interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations. The normal remedy at law being a suit for the enforcement of contractual rights and obligations, the High Court will not grant relief under Article 199 of the Constitution merely for the purpose of enforcing contractual rights and obligations. This Court cannot exercise powers under Article 199 of the Constitution for the implementation of any alleged undertaking between the parties. This petition is meritless, hence dismissed in limine.