MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.----The above titled constitutional petitions (CPs) since have commonality , thus are decided by this common judgment.
2. All the petitioners are claiming to be the Government Contractors and have rendered services to the respondents primarily in respect of civil works, except the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos.D-2320/2014 and 1332/2014. In these CPs, both the petitioners were given contracts to provide / supply cooked food to under trial prisoners at different judicial lock-ups in Sindh, by the respondents. Similarly C.Ps. Nos.D-3770/2013 and D-1830/2015 relate to supply of fuel / petrol (gasoline) to the of ficial respondents.
3. The stance of learned counsel representing the petitioners is that respondents without any reason have not paid the amounts due and payable by them to the petitioners in lieu of the services rendered by the petitioners under the respective Contracts and Work Orders which are the subject matter of these CPs; whereas, the legal team of official respondents have controverted the above position. Mr. Liaqat Ali Shar, the learned Additional Advocate General, has raised the question of maintainability of these petitions in view of recent decision (order dated 12.10.2017) passed by the learned Divis ion Bench of Larkana Circuit, in number of constitutional petitions, viz. Nawabzada case ( ibid), whereby , all the CPs have been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced their respective arguments at length and cited case law for and against the maintainability and grant of CPs of the nature. The crux of the arguments of petitioners' counsel is that when the amount claimed is not disputed by the respondents nor the work done by the petitioners, then such type of dispute can be successfully agitated in a writ jurisdiction by filing a constitutional petition.
5. After taking into the account the submissions of learned Advocates representing the petitioners and respondents, the above titled CPs are categorized into A, B and C categories.
(i) Category 'A'
This category covers those CPs in which material facts are not disputed by the respondents; such as, awarding of contract, work done and the amount claimed. Following CPs fall in this category . C.P. Nos. Reasons
1. CP No.D- 2611/2012As per reply / comments of respondents, due to freezing of funds by donor agency , claim amount of petitioner was not paid.
2. CP No.D- 3758/2013Balance amount was not paid due to non-allocation of funds by Government in ADP (Annual Development Programme).
3. CP No.D-735/2014 No reason assigned by the respondents for non-payment.
4. CP No.D- 1229/2014Due to shortage of funds, the amount of petitioner was not paid within time.
5. CP No.D- 1230/2014Funds were not released as per allocation hence the payment could not be made to petitioner but claim of petitioner is included in the list of Government liabilities.
6. CP No.D- 1332/2014Funds not provided by Government despite correspondence by the then Executive District Of ficer Revenue.
7. CP No.D- 2320/2014Claim of petitioner is partly admitted to the extent of Rs.636,558/- for petitioner No.1 and Rs.462,496/- for respondent No.2. However the Government has not released the funds towards payment of the petitioners.
8. CP No.D- 3251/2014Claim admitted. No reason assigned to deny the payment.
9. CP No.D- 1830/2015Payment could not be made due to financial constraints.
10. CP No. D- 2363/2015Payment could not be made due to non-release of required funds.
11. CP No. D- 2366/2015Required funds were not released by the Government.
12. CP No.D- 2727/2015Claim of petitioner is admitted but the payment has not been made due to non- allocation of funds by Government.
13. CP No.D- 4029/2015Payment could not be made for non-availability of funds.
14. CP No.D- 1378/2016Funds not released by Finance department Government of Sindh.
15. CP No.D-943/2017 Issuance of work order is admitted by respondent, but on account of change in administrative setup, payment is denied.
(ii) Category 'B '
Those CPs in which the officials / respondents are disputing the work done by the petitioners as well as the amount claimed by the latter (Petitioners). Following are those CPs: C.P. Nos. Reasons 1.CP No.D- 109/201 1.Claim denied on the ground that full payment to the petitioner has been made.
2.CP No.D- 2011/2013Claim denied on the ground that work has not been completed and the amount of work done has already been paid / settled.
3.CP No. D- 1813/2014Claim of petitioner is denied, because no work was done at the site an non-production of measurement book. Also alleging collusion.
4.CP No.D- 5160/2016Claim denied by the respondents, on account of making all payments. However security deposit is admitted. Thus, C.P involves triable issues.
5.CP No.D- 666/2016The contents of petition is denied by the respondents on the ground that relevant record of the Town Committee Naushahro Feroze has been seized by NAB Sukkur on 17.11.2015.
6.CP No.D- 893/2017Claim of the petitioner is denied by Superintending Engineer by stating that .work orders are bogus. (iii) Category 'C '
There are many CPs in which till date, regretfully the respondents have not filed parawise comments despite repeated chances, neither accepting nor disputing the claims of the petitioners.
In addition to the above, in those CPs where the parawise comments of official respondents are contradictory to each other , are put under the heading of this Category 'C'.
1. CP No.D-2570/2012 Respondents have submitted Contradictory parawise comments.
2. CP No.D-2322/2013
3. CP No.D-3770/2013 Evasive reply by respondents, but documents relating to the transaction in question are not questioned.
4. CP No.D-625/2014
5. CP No. D-1059/2014
6. CP No.D-1845/2014
7. CP No.D-2508/2014 Claim partly admitted as respondents have filed contradictory comments; Chief Engineer Irrigation Guddu Barrage denied the liability, whereas Superintending Engineer Desert Pat Feeder Circle Sukkur and Executive Engineer Guddu Barrage have accepted the claim of petitioner for Rs.30,70,759/-
8. CP No.D-2761/2014
9. CP No.D-385/2015
10. CP No.D-551/2015
11. CP No.D-568/2015 12 CP No.D-1007/2015 Liability not denied but only the figures / amount claimed.
13. C.P. No. D-1278/2015;
14. C.P. No.D-1329 / 2015;
15. C.P.No.D-1416/2015 ;
16. C.P. No.D-1440/2015; 17.
C.P.No.D-2407 / 2015;
18. C.P. No. D-2478/2015;
19. C.P.No.D-2579 / 2015;
20. C.P. No.D-3085/2015; 21.
C.P.No.D-3192 / 2015;
22. C.P. No.D-3272/2015;
23. C.P. No.D3663/2015;
24. C.P. No.D-3969/2015;
25. C.P. No. D-4579 / 2015;
26. C.P.No.D-4822/2015;
27. C.P. No.D-146/2016;
28. C.P.No.D-469/2016;
29. C.P.No. D- 560/2016;
30. C.P.No.D-697 / 2016;
31. C.P. No.D-996/2016;
32. C.P. No.D-1248 / 2016;
33. C.P. No. D- 1320/2016;
34. C.P. No. D-1380 / 2016;
35. C.P.No.D-1970/2016;
36. C.P.No.D-2916/2016; 37.C.P .No.D-2977 / 2016;
38. C.P. No.D-3361/2016;
39. C.P. No.D-3362 / 2016;
40. C.P. No.D-3714/2016; 41.C.P . No.D-3715/2016; 42.C.P .No.D4007 / 2016;
43. C.P. No.D-5490/2016;
44. C.P. No.D-54/2017;
45. C.P. No.D-85/2017;
46. C.P.
No.D-194/2017;
47. C.P. No.D-490 / 2017;
48. C.P. No.D-593/2017;
49. C.P. No.D-660/2017;
50. C.P.No.D- 707/2017;
51. C.P. No.D-857/2017;
52. C.P. No.D-1314/2017;
53. C.P. No.D-1373/2017;
54. C.P. No.D-1549/2017 and 55. C.P . No.D-1728/2017
6. At the outset question of maintainability should be addressed. Legal team for respondents have relied upon the case law mentioned in the opening part of this decision. The most recent one is the case of Nawabzada (ibid) . The learned Division Bench of this Court (Larkana Circuit) dismissed various CPs, by mainly relying on an earlier decision of this Court given in CP No.D-546 of 2014 (Fida Hussain and others v. Secretary Local Government Sindh and others ), which decision was later unsuccessfull y challenged before the Apex Court. The learned AAG under his statement dated 19.12.2017 has produced the order passed in the said Fida Hussain case by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The factors which weighed with the learned Bench was that in Fida Hussain case substantial payments were already made by the official respondents despite that petitioners (in Fida Hussain case) did not comply with the office objection and not even placed on record the National Tax Number . The Court came to the conclusion that earlier interim orders were obtained through collusion and fraud; consequently the petition was dismissed. The Apex Court while refus ing the leave have observed that official respondents made obliging statement . Similarly in Nawabzada case an adverse observation was made for one of the petitioners who has constructed a Bus Stand (purportedly), but his claim was not verified by the official respondents, instead, they contended that the said contractor starte d residing in the said Bus Terminal / Stand. The ratio decidendi in the Nawabzada case is that respondents have raised objections and disputed the claim of the petitioners (of Nawabzada case) in respect of completion of work and amount payable.
7. The other decision relied upon by the respondents' side is the order passed in CP No.D-5008/2015 [Sikander case, (ibid) ]. In this case too, learned Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner by placing reliance upon the reported decisions of Nizamuddin and Pakcom; both handed down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that of Indus Trading. It is necessary to minutely examine these judicial pronouncements. The last reported case of Indus Trading , in our considered view, is distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present CPs, as it relates to imposition of regulatory duty under the Customs Act, which was challenged by the appellants (of the reported case) though unsuccessfully . The Supreme Court was of the opinion that imposition of regulatory duty should have been challenged before the forum provided under the Custom Act, 1969, which is the special law, by further , holding, that writ jurisdiction of High Court in such cases was wrongly invoked. The other reported decision of Apex Court is the Nizamuddin case, which is also relied upon in the Nawabzada case (afore referred). In this case the controversy was that respondent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) moved to terminate the lease in favour of the appellants (of the reported case), who apprehended their dispossession from the properties.
With these background facts the appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that such contractual obligations are not enforceable by invoking writ jurisdiction but by availing other alternate remedies. The other determining factor for dismissing the appeal in reported decision of Nizamuddin was the inaction on the part of appellant.
However , in the same case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the rule that undisputed factual controversies of urgent nature can be agitated through writ petitions. It is necessary to produce herein under the relevant dictum as laid down in the said reported decision: "It is axiomatic principle of law that every case is to be adjudged on its own facts, circumstances and merits. If in a particular case both the parties admit the factual aspect which give rise to the dispute and the Court feels that the matter is of such an urgent nature that the very remedy would get frustrated, if the aggrieved party is directed to seek redress through alternative remedy available under the law, then in that case it would be proper for the Court to entertain the writ petition."
(To add emphasis underling is done).
8. Next is the reported judgment handed down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pakcom case (supra ). It would be advantageous to discuss in brief the facts of this case. Federal Government granted a license to Pakcom Private Limited to establish, maintain and operate cellular mobile telephone public service and system within the territory of Pakistan for a period of 15 years due to be expired on 18.4.2005. In the intervening period Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) came into the existence by a special statute, viz. Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. Dispute arose between PTA and Pakcom regarding the issuance of show cause notice, inter alia, for recovery of dues from Pakcom, which latter contested. The order was passed by PTA against Pakcom which was subsequently challenged in the FAO No.3 of 2008 before the learned Lahore High Court and during proceeding, by consent the case was remanded to the PTA which again decided the matter vide its order dated 04.3.2008. Although Pakcom challenged the second order through a fresh FAO, but also invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Both FAOs and writ petition were dismissed by the learned Islamabad High Court, which was challenged and became the subject matter of the above reported case. One of the controversies involved (in the afore referred case), was acquisition of share holding by another Telecommunication Company in Pakcom Ltd., besides other contentious dispute arising out of rival contractual obligations. With this factual background and in this context , particularly where statutory remedy under the above referred special statute was available, the Apex Court laid down the rule with regard to invoking writ jurisdiction of High Courts. It is also not out of place to mention that in the above reported decision, allegation of fraud and undue influence was also levelled by the parties against each other . In the said reported decision of Pakcom, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated an established principle that violation of a contract or failure to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned therein cannot be decided in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction and such controversies should be resolved by approaching the appropriate forum provided by law, inter alia, civil suits. It has been further explained and elaborated that extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is available when the impugned action of an executive or other authority is exfacie illegal, which did not require any elaborate enquiry into the complicated or disputed facts.
9. The other set of case law cited by the learned counsel representing the petitioners is also considered, because they directly relate to the controversy involved. The decision given in Jehan Ali's case (ibid) by a learned Division Bench of this Court was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petitio ns Nos.853-K to 857-K of 2001 filed by the Government of Sindh. The Apex Court endorsed the view of this Court in the above case by holding that admitted claims if remained unpaid by the Government, can be agitated by invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court. A mundane reply of official respondents about non-availability of funds was rejected by the Courts while expressing their displeasure . The relevant portion of the Supreme Court's judgment is reproduced herein under: "the learned High Court in last two paras has observed as under: "It is shocking to note that the payment has not been made even though the order was passed more than two years ago. The ground of non-availability of funds to make payment does not appeal to reason because it is not possible to believe that the employees of the Irrigation Department including respondents 1 to 4 have been working without receiving any salary from the Governmen t of Sindh. The ground given for delay is not reasonable and is rejected. However , in the interest of justice and as a matter of grace three months' time is allowed to pay the petitioners claim. The respondents shall also pay compensation/Liquidated damages for delay in payment at the rate of 15% per annum from 1.7.2001 till the date of payment.
The respondents are put on notice that if they do not pay the amount within the period specified above, their conduct shall be treated as contempt of Court and they shall be dealt with accordingly ."
(underlining to add emphasis)
10. Similar view has been expressed and reiterated in other decisions relied upon by the petitioners side and mentioned in the opening part of this judgment. In the Maqbool's case (supra), this Court ordered the attachment of accounts of official respondents to the extent of claim of petitioners. This order is also significant because both the learned Judges who passed the order were subsequently elevated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly in the Kolachi's case (ibid), the learned Division Bench of this Court has even observed that the enquiry conducted by the official respondents (Secretary Irrigation and Power Department) in respect of the work done by the petitioner (of the said case), but after conclusion of proceeding before the Ombudsman, was tainted with mala fide. The contentions of officials were repelled by the learned Division Bench in its decision and the petition was allowed as prayed ; ratio decidendi (reasons for deciding a matter) is quite relevant to the present controversy involved in the subject CPs. The above last two decisions from the standpoint of principle of stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent) is also significant, as all the learned Judges who have handed down these decisions were subsequently elevated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held in the case of Workers Unions (ibid) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when Judges who rendered decisions are subsequently elevated to Supreme Court, then their decisions are to be considered with highest consideration, if the views expresse d in these decisions were / are neither approved nor disapproved by the Apex Court. What we deduce from the above is that the binding force of Maqbool and Kolachi cases to the facts of present controversy and particularly to the CPs falling in category 'A' is on a higher pedestal than the usual effect of stare decisis. The same rule will apply to the decision handed down in Khan's case ( supra ) (CP No.D-780 of 2002) by this Court.
11. The well know Pfizer's case (supra ) though pertains to tax dispute and refun d of taxes and duties recovered by the Government Departments unauthorizedly , yet the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said reported decision touches upon the present controversy as well, inter alia, due to the exhaustiveness of discussion done in the reported decision. It has been held, inter alia, that a Superior Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction can direct the refund of money if no disputed question of fact is involve d, while further observing that in a democratic setup a Government of the day has to follow ethical and moral value and must treat the citizens in a fair and just manner regardless of legal technicalities.
12. When a Government through its functionaries enters into with or awards a contract to a private party or entity , then there is a reasonable and legitimate expectation that the Government functionaries who represent the State will honour the agreed commitment, unless, there are sufficient reasons available with the Government functionaries for revoking a contract and / or not making the payments; here contr acts admittedly are not revoked, therefore, Government is bound to honour them, specially , for the cases falling in category 'A' above. In view of the judicial pronouncement by the Full Bench of learned Lahore High Court in the case of Orient Power (ibid), the contractual obligations arising out of a contract entered by a Government functionary with that of a juristic / corporate entity has been held to be on a higher footing than the ordinary contractual obligations between the two private parties to a contract . Their lordships have expressed the view that a breach of contract complained of on the part of the State can be said to be breach of statutory obligation , hence amenable to writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners of subject CPs, particularly , those falling in category 'A', have carried out the work as per the specification and in terms of the respective contracts, then non-payment of their admitted claims by the respondents is wholly unjustified and illegal. It is in fact not only a blatant breach of contract by official respondents but this act is violative of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees freedom of trade, business and profession. Similarly these acts of official respondents also impinge upon the fundamental rights of petitioners as enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution relating to the property rights. The term 'property' as contained in Article 24 has been defined in Article 260 of the Constitution itself, which includes any right, title or interest in property , moveable and immoveable. Therefore, if a monetary claim of a person, in the instant case, the petitioners of category 'A' are not disputed by the officials (respondents), but still remain unpaid, then this amounts to depriving the petitioners from their moveable properties.
13. To further supplement the above discussion, two reported judgments of our Supreme Court in Airport Services and Khalid Mehmood cases (supra ) have expounded the availability of alternate and efficacious remedy vis--vis bar of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The crux of the principle laid down in these cases is that even availability / existence of an adequate, alternate remedy can not operate as an absolute bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgments herein under: "Neither of the conclusions of the High Court is sustainable. It has consistently been held that while routine contractual disputes between private parties and public functionaries are not open to scrutiny under the Constitutional jurisdiction, breaches of such contracts, which do not entail inquiry into or examination of minute or controversial questions of fact, if committed by Government, semi-Government or Local Authorities or like controversies if involving dereliction of obligations, flowing from a statute, rules or instructions can adequately be addressed for relief under that jurisdiction . Further a contract, carrying elements of public interest, concluded by functionaries of the State, has to be just, fair, transparent, reasonable and free of any taint of mala fides, all such aspects remaining open for judicial review . The rule is founded on the premises that public functionaries, deriving authority from or under law, are obligated to act justly , fairly equitably , reasonably , without any element of discrimination and squarely within the parameters of law, as applicable in a given situation. Deviations, if of substance, can be corrected through appropriate orders under Article 199 of the Constitution. In such behalf even where a contract, pure and simple, is involved, provided always that public element presents itself and the dispute does not entail evidentiary facts of a disputed nature, rederess may be provided .....". [ 1998 SCMR 2268 ] (To add emphasis underling is done).
"Of such alternative remedies also there are some, which would still leave the jurisdiction of the High Court virtually unaffected, if the order , complained of, is so patently illegal, void or wanting in jurisdiction that any further recourse to or prolongation of the alternative remedy may only be counter-productive and, by invocation of Article 199 the mischief can forthwith be nipped in the bud. In such matters, of course, neither the alternative remedy would be adequate nor bar of jurisdiction in the Sub-Constitutional Legislation may come in the way of the High Court in exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction."
[1999 SCMR 1881 ] In a subsequent reported decision in Farooqui's case (supra), the learned Division Bench of this Court disagreed with the arguments of respondents, inter alia, about alternate remedy available under the Regulation of Generation Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, while holding that to apply strictly the concept of alternate remedy , the Courts had to see that whether the said remedy is adequate and efficacious also. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein under: "In view of principle, laid down in the above case, we observe that the alternate remedy ought to be adequate, that is to say, promptitude may be there and if it is not so, High Court can issue appropriate writ.
This being so, we observe that the writ petitions are maintainable, in that, the alternate remedy rests upon a lengthy procedure."
To sum up the above in few words, a reported decision of Indian Supreme Court handed down in DFO's case (supra) must be mentioned here together with the reproduction of its relevant portion:-- "We are unable to hold that merely because the source of the right which the respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and un-lawful action on the part of a public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. In view of the judgment of this Court in K. N. Guruswamy's case, (1955) 1 SCR 305=(AIR 1954 SC 592) there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory power ."
(underlined to supply emphasis).
14. The objective of law is to ensure an orderly behaviour in a society and if on one hand a wrongful act is left unattended on the basis of certain technicalities and on the other hand a victim of wrongful act is left to run from pillar to post, then in due course of time, an orderly system of a society would be diminished and will be replaced by a disorderly and intolerant behaviour as well as lawlessness.
15. For the above reasons we deemed it appropriate to categorize the subject CPs. The dicta of the reported judgments cited by the petitioners are applicable to the subject CPs falling in category 'A', wherein respective claims of petitioners have not been refuted by the respondents and therefore these petitions are to be accepted.
Thus, the arguments of the legal team of the respondents to the extent of subject CPs falling in category 'A' have no merits.
Issues involved here are of peculiar nature as discussed herein above, inter alia, concerning the fundamental right(s) of a citizen / Petitioners, which indeed is a very serious one and must be remedied at the earliest.
16. Considering the cases of petitioners whose claims are not disputed by the respondents / officials, in our view it would be unjust to direct those petitioners to go through another round of litigation in the shape of civil suits. Even, in the Indus Trading case ( ibid) the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the hardship factor favourably .
17. The upshot of the above is that CPs falling in category 'A' are accepted and the respondents are directed to pay the undisputed monetary claims of petitioners within two weeks from today , but after completing the codal formalities.
18. As a sequel to the above discussion, and by following the rule mentioned in the recent judgment of this Court in Nawabzada's case (supra ), the subject CPs falling in category "B" are dismissed, because the claims of respective petitioners of this category of CPs have been disputed by the official respondents. However , all the petitioners will be at liberty to avail their remedy , if any , before the proper forum in accordance with law .
19. For the CPs mentioned under the heading of category 'C', we deem it appropri ate that the respective claims of petitioners should first be scrutinized, examined and finalized by the concerned Departments / officials respondents within four (04) weeks from today and if the same are found to be correct and genuine then the monetary claims of the respective petitioners of CPs falling under category 'C' should be settled within two (02) weeks, as per their entitlement and subject to the above directions and after completing codal formalities.
20. In view of the above, all the subject CPs stand disposed of.
ANNEXURE Case-law relied upon by Petitioner's counsel Civil Petitions Nos. 853-K to 857-K of 2001 (Unreported Case)
[Government of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department and others v . Jehan Ali and others ] C.P . No. D-327 of 2001 (Unreported Case)
[Jehan Ali v. Government of Sindh through Secretary , Irrigation and Power Department and others ("Jehan Ali's case")] C.P .No. D-330 of 2001 (Unreported Case)
[Mir Muhammad v. Government of Sindh through Secretary , Irrigation and Power Department and others ("Mir's case")] C.P . No. D-1 132 of 1998 (Unreported Case)
[Maqbool Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh, through Secretary , Irrigation and Power and others ("Maqbool's case")] C.P . No.D-1080 of 1999 (Unreported Case)
[Muhammad Murad Kolachi v. Province of Sindh, through Secretary , Irrigation and Power Department and others ("Kolachi's case")] C.P . No. D-1006 of 2001 (Unreported Case)
[Khoobchand v . Government of Sindh through Secretary ,Irrigation Department and others ("Khoobchand's case")] C.P .No. D-780 of 2002 (Unreported Case)
[Khan Muhammad v . Province of Sindh through Secretary , Irrigation and Power and others ("Khan's case")] Case-law relied upon by Respondents' counsel PLD 201 1 Supreme Court page-44 [Pakcom Limited and others v . Federation of Pakistan and others ("Pakcom's case")] 1999 SCMR page-467 [Nizamuddin and another v . Civil Aviation Authority and others ("CAA's case")] 2016 SCMR page-842 [Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others ("Indus Trading case")] Constitution Petition D - 976 of 2014 (Unreported case) [Nadeem Ahmed Malik v. Taluka Municipal Administration Mehrabpur and others ("Malik' s case")) Civil Petitions Nos.95-K to 98-K. of 2017 (Unreported case) [Fida Hussain v. Secretary Local Government of Sindh and others ("Fida's case")) Constitutional Petition No. 551 of 2007 (Unreported case) [Nawabzada Sardar Ahmed Khan v. Frontier Works Organization and others ("Nawabzada's case")] C. P. No. D-5008 of 2015 (Unreported case)
[Sikandar v . Province of Sindh through Secretary , Irrigation and others ("Sikandar's case")] Other Precedent (s): PLD 1998 SC 64 [M/s. Pfizer Laboratories Limited v . Federation of Pakistan and others ("Pfizer's case")] 1997 SCMR 66 [Agriculture Workers' Unions, Balochista n v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan, Quetta and others ("Worker Unions' case")] 1998 CLC 1 178 [Messrs Wak Orient Power and Light Limited through Chief Executive, Lahore v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power through Secretary , Islamabad and 2 others ("Orient Power's case)] AIR 1973 Supreme Court 205 [The D.F .O. South Kheri and others v . Rain Sanehi Singh ("DFO's case)] 1999 SCMR 1881 [Khalid Mehmood v . Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore ("Khalid Mehmood's case")] PLD 2014 Sindh 443 [Messrs Farooqui Ice Factory , Gambat through Proprietor and 24 others v. Revenue Officer SEPCO (WAPDA, Ranipur , District Khairpur and 14 others ("Farooqui's case")] 1998 SCMR 2268 [Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager , Quaid-e-Azan Internatio nal Airport, Karachi and others ("Airport Services' case")]