1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Briefly, the facts of case are that petitioner participated in auction proceedings held by respondents on 21.8.2000 for collection of Taxi Vagon Stand Fee. The respondents declared the petitioner as highest bidder and his bid was accepted. The work order was issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 24.8.200,0. The petitioner in obedience of the direction of the respondents deposited 10% of the contract money alongwith 2% amount in the Municipal Fund of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 sent notice to the petitioner on 22.12.2000 to deposit the amount Rs.10358002/- for the period from July to September, 2000 regarding the instalment of November and December, 2000. The petitioner submitted an application before respondent No. 1 not to take law in their own hands but respondent No. 1 did not pass any order on his application and took over the contract from the petitioner forcibly on 23.12.2000. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed suit for declaration against respondents before learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, who directed the respondents not to invoke the contract except in due course of law vide order dated 2.1.2001. The respondents submitted written statement before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura and took stand that Town Committee had already taken over the lob w.e.f. 22.12.200.0 and its employees are receiving/collecting fee in terms of agreement executed between the parties on 27.9.2000.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner was paying Rs.20,000/- per day till 22.12.2000 whereas the subordinate staff of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have collected Rs.67,000/- per day which is not in the interest of respondents; that action of respondents is without lawful authority as action has been taken by respondents male fidely. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgments:- Mehmood A.I Butt's case (PLD 1997 SC 823). Bohai' Balal Corp.'s case (KLR 1997 Rev Cases 27).
2. M/s. Pasific Multi National Pvt. Ltd.s' case (PLD 1992 Karachi 283).
3. M/s. Walk Orient Power and Light Ltd. Gu/berg Lahore's case (PLJ 1998 Lah. 665).
4. He further submits that public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law but in the present case respondents failed to act in accordance with law. He relied upon Javed Hotel Pvt.
5. Ltd.'s case (PLD 1994 Lah. 315) and M/s. Presson Manufacturing Ltd.'s case (1995 MLD 15); that during pendency of suit filed by the petitioner writ petition is maintainable as the suit filed by the petitioner is not efficacious remedy. In this behalf he has relied upon Malik Mehraj Khalid's case (PLD 1988 Lab.
6. 325).
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record: It is admitted fact that petitioner had already filed civil suit before the competent Court which is pending adjudication. The question arises whether in the presence of civil suit the writ petition is maintainable or not? The petitioner's counsel relied upon Malik Mehraj Khalid's case (supra) (PLD 1988 Lah. 325) and objection was over-ruled by this Court in relying upon Abdullah Mehmood Peer Mohamad's case (P.L.D. 1971 SC 130). The relevant observations from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder to resolve present controversy between the parties:- "It must be remembered in this context that the Corporation was threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the impugned taxes and the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court had in other similar cases upheld the formula applied by the Municipal Commissioner and declined to grant stay orders. However, a number of writ petitions arising in similar circumstances had been admitted in the meantime by the High Court and recovery of taxes stayed in those case. In the circumstances it would have been a futile exercise on the part of these appellants to approach the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. On this view it could not be said that another adequate remedy was available to the appellants and having failed to make resort to it they had disentitled themselves to invoke, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court"
7. The aforesaid proposition of law was subsequently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Mayat and another's case (1988 SCMR 1722) and the relevant observation is asunder:- "It is well recognized and indeed provided by Article 199 of the Constitution that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court can ordinarily be invoked when there is no other remedy provided by law. When appellants themselves had invoked the statutory remedy of second appeal, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the High Court that in the presence of the pending appeal, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
8. The aforesaid proposition of Jaw was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Tanvir Ahmad Siddiky's case (PLD 1968 SC 185) and the relevant observation is as follows:- "It further appears that a regular suit filed by the appellant to establish the nature of the property, is also pending in the Civil Court. That by itself would be a sufficient ground for denying any relief in writ jurisdiction to the appellant in this case."
9. The case relied upon by the petitioner's counsel are distinguished on facts and law whereas the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the law laid down in Tanvir Ahmad Siddiky's case supra and Abdul Rehman Mayat's case. It is also admitted fact that agreement executed between the parties contained arbitration clause, in this view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable.
10. In this behalf reliance is placed upon the following judgments: (1997 SCMR 121) Project Director Baluchistan Minor Irrigation and Development's case.
11. (1994 SCMR 1482) Raja Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others.
12. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court, voluntarily, therefore, he is not allowed to by-pass the same as the law laid down in Shaukat Afzal's case (1993 SCMR 1810). The judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel are distinguished on facts and law and have no relevancy to resolve the- present controversy keeping in view the special circumstances of this case. It settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.