MUNIR A. SHEIKH/ J- In this Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, order dated 173.1992 passed by the learned single Judge through which W.P.No.2453/92 filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine has been assailed.
2. The appellant entered into contract with respondent No.2 before privatization of Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd., for supply of cement as stockist. According to the terms of the said agreement he deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- as security for due performance of the same. In consequence of privatization of the said Factory it was transferred to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 issued letter on 29.1.1992 to the petitioner intimating him that if he wanted to continue getting supply of cement as stockist he shall have to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- as security. Earlier to that respondent No.2 had already intimated the petitioner, regarding its decision that the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for supply of cement under which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited as security had been cancelled in exercise of power vested in it under Clause 15 thereof. The petitioner was given choice either to receive back the said amount of Rs.25,000/- or utilize the same for fresh arrangement with respondent No.4 i.e. Transferee of the said concern.
3. The appellant challenged the legality of letters dated 29.1.1992 and 6.2.1992 in Constitutional petition. His main grievance was that there being no provision in the law under which the Maple Leaf Cement Factory was privatised that the previous agreement existing between the Government and the petitioner would become ineffective, as such respondent No.4 could not demand from the petitioner any amount in addition to the amount of Rs. 25,000/- already deposited by him as security for getting supply of cement. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge through order dated 17.3.1992.
4. In the writ petition the appellant wanted to enforce contractual obligations arising from agreement executed between the appellant and respondent No.2. It is firmly settled law that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through Constitutional petition and the remedy of the aggrieved person in such case of breach of contract by one party lies in filing civil suit before the Civil Court established under the ordinary law. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince us that it is a case where any exception can be taken to this general rule laid down by the superior Courts.
5. The order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this appeal is found to be of no merits which is accordingly dismissed in limine.