 |
| Stay order against govt department. |
این ایچ اے کے عوامی فرائض میں عدالت غیر ضروری مداخلت نہیں کرے گی، اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ
2026 CLC 1059
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا ہے کہ قومی شاہراہوں کی تعمیر، مرمت اور دیکھ بھال عوامی مفاد سے براہِ راست متعلق ہے، اس لیے اگر کوئی ٹھیکیدار اپنی معاہداتی ذمہ داریاں پوری کرنے میں ناکام رہے تو عدالت ایسے معاملات میں عوامی مفاد کے خلاف عبوری حکم امتناع جاری نہیں کرے گی۔
مختصر پس منظر
کرم اللہ کنسٹرکشن کمپنی نے نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی (NHA) کے ساتھ سڑک کی مرمت و بحالی کا معاہدہ کیا تھا، لیکن مقررہ مدت میں صرف 13.9 فیصد کام مکمل کیا۔ متعدد نوٹس، یاددہانیوں اور مہلتوں کے باوجود کام مکمل نہ ہونے پر NHA نے معاہدہ ختم کر دیا۔ کمپنی نے سول عدالت سے معاہدہ ختم کرنے کا نوٹس معطل کرنے اور NHA کو کسی دوسرے ٹھیکیدار کو کام دینے سے روکنے کے لیے عبوری حکم امتناع طلب کیا، تاہم ٹرائل کورٹ نے درخواست مسترد کر دی۔ بعد ازاں اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔
اہم قانونی نکات
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ عبوری حکم امتناع دینے کے لیے بادی النظر مضبوط مقدمہ (Prima Facie Case)، توازنِ سہولت (Balance of Convenience) اور ناقابلِ تلافی نقصان (Irreparable Loss) تینوں شرائط کا موجود ہونا ضروری ہے، جبکہ اس مقدمے میں یہ شرائط پوری نہیں ہوئیں۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اپیل کنندہ صرف 13.9 فیصد کام مکمل کر سکا، حالانکہ اسے بارہا نوٹس اور مہلت دی گئی، اس لیے وہ بادی النظر مضبوط مقدمہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ عوامی مفاد کسی ایک ٹھیکیدار کے نجی مفاد پر مقدم ہے کیونکہ سڑکوں کی بروقت مرمت اور بحالی لاکھوں شہریوں کے محفوظ سفر سے متعلق ہے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ صرف مالی نقصان ناقابلِ تلافی نقصان نہیں ہوتا، کیونکہ اس کا ازالہ ہرجانے کے ذریعے ممکن ہے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی قومی شاہراہوں کی منصوبہ بندی، تعمیر، مرمت اور دیکھ بھال کی قانونی ذمہ دار ہے اور یہ ذمہ داری عوامی مفاد کے تحفظ کے لیے ادا کی جاتی ہے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ آئینِ پاکستان کے آرٹیکل 15 کے تحت شہریوں کو آزادانہ اور محفوظ نقل و حرکت کا بنیادی حق حاصل ہے، جس کے تحفظ کے لیے سڑکوں کی بروقت مرمت ضروری ہے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاہدے کی شرائط کے مطابق اگر ٹھیکیدار اپنی ذمہ داریاں پوری نہ کرے تو NHA کسی دوسرے ٹھیکیدار سے کام مکمل کرانے کی مجاز ہے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاہدے میں ثالثی (Arbitration) کی شق موجود ہونے کی صورت میں فریقین کو پہلے معاہدے میں درج تنازع کے حل کے طریقہ کار سے رجوع کرنا چاہیے۔
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ Specific Relief Act, 1877 کی دفعہ 56(d) کے تحت عدالت کسی سرکاری ادارے کو اس کے عوامی فرائض انجام دینے سے روکنے کے لیے حکم امتناع جاری نہیں کر سکتی۔
حوالہ جات
- Karamullah Construction Company v. National Highway Authority 2026 CLC 1059 (Islamabad High Court)
دیگر نظائر:
- PLD 2020 Lahore 407
- 2019 CLC 1189
- 1998 SCMR 376
- (2023) 4 SCC 498
نتیجہ
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب کوئی ٹھیکیدار معاہدے کی بنیادی شرائط پوری کرنے میں ناکام رہے اور منصوبہ عوامی مفاد سے متعلق ہو تو عدالت عبوری حکم امتناع جاری نہیں کرے گی۔ ایسے معاملات میں عوامی مفاد، قومی وسائل کا تحفظ اور شہریوں کی محفوظ نقل و حرکت کو ترجیح حاصل ہوگی، جبکہ معاہداتی تنازعات کے حل کے لیے معاہدے میں طے شدہ طریقہ کار، خصوصاً ثالثی، اختیار کیا جانا چاہیے۔
Must read judgement.
Karamollah Construction Company v. National Highway Authority (Muhammad Azam Khan, J)
2026 CLC 1059
[Islamabad]
Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Messrs KARAMULLAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, through Sole Proprietor ---Appellant
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY through Chairman and 3 others ---Respondents
F.A.O. No. 11 of 2025, decided on 16th April, 2025.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction---Injunction, seeking of-Ingredients, absence of---Contract of the work pertained to repair/maintenance of road between the Construction Company /Contractor and the National Highway Authority / Authority---Contractor filed the civil suit along with application for interim relief with the prayer to suspend the Notice of Termination and to restrain the Respondent Authority from creating any third-party rights in the contract-Plaintiff (Appellant/Contractor) assailed order passed by the Trial Court whereby the request of the Appellant / Contractor to seek ad-interim injunction was declined ('impugned order')---Validity---Record (including General Condition of Contract / GCC, Letters/Notices/Reminders issued to the Appellant/Contractor by the Respondents/Defendants) revealed that the Appellant/Contractor failed to complete the project within the specified agreed time---Though the Respondents, time and again, intimated the Appellant/Contractor to mobilize its machinery and start the work without further delays but, pertinently, only 13.9% of work was done-Finally, despite being granted several opportunities to complete the work in accordance with the contract, the Appellant/Contractor failed to fulfill their obligations, thus, the Appellant/Contractor had no good prima facie case; balance of convenience also was not in his favor as the work pertained to repair/maintenance of road, to be used by the general public; and the project had been delayed for almost 2/3 years, causing great hardship to the public at large---Appellant/Contractor, instead of sitting idle during this time, should have completed the project and/or at least tried to mobilize the work in order to show his bona fide intent, but he failed to do so, thereby causing extreme loss to the public exchequer as well as the public at large-Even third ingredient of the temporary injunction, which is irreparable loss, also went against the
1060
CIVIL LAW CASES
[Vol. XLVI
on part of the Appellant/Contractor as monetary loss is not considered as irreparable loss--The deliberate failure against the Respondent / Authority, especially, when the proje Appellant/Contractor could not assist him in Shtaining an injunction involved larger public welfare-Thus, the Trial Court had rightly declined to issue an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Appellant/Contractor against the Respondents/Defendants-Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. [pp. 1066, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1074] A, B, C, D, G, L & N
(b) National Highway Authority Act (XI of 1991)--
S.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction-Right of movement---National Highway Authority... Functions---Injunction against government department, seeking of... Contract of work pertained to repair/maintenance of road between the Construction Company /Contractor and the National Highway Authority / Authority---Contractor filed the civil suit along with application for interim relief with the prayer to suspend the Notice of Termination and to restrain the Respondent Authority from creating any third-party rights in the contract---Plaintiff /Appellant (Construction Company) (Appellant/Contractor) assailed order passed by the Civil Court whereby the request of the Appellant to seek ad-interim injunction was declined ('impugned order')---Validity---Providing an appropriate safe passage to travel throughout the country is a responsibility shouldered upon the State, and the Respondent Authority, created under the National Highway Authority Act, 1991, which is bound to carry out its work mandated under the law---Respondent /Authority was established for the very purpose of planning, development, operation and maintenance of the National Highways and strategic roads to provide safe, time efficient and better road facilities international standards to the Respondent /travelers/commuters/passengers---Therefore, of Authority is the custodian of the highway assets of Pakistan's road network and is committed to providing a safe, modern and efficient transportation system---It is a fundamental right of the commuters under Art.15 of the Constitution of Pakistan to freely exercise their right of movement in an efficient manner---If projects contracted for by the public functionaries with private corporations, for the purpose of maintaining the highways, are not fulfilled in due time, the public functionaries must remain firm in advancing the very purpose of the contract with a view to developing, maintaining and planning the highways in accordance with the law in stricto sensu---In the present case, under provisions of the Contract, it became ostensibly clear that
Karamullah Construction Company v. National Highway Authority ( Muhammad Azam Khan, 1)
1061 In case of default on part of the Appellant/Contractor, the Respondent/Authority was authorized and entitled to employ and pay ether persons to carry out the same in order to advance mobilization of the project within a reasonable time-Hence, the Respondent /Authority was not restricted under the Contract from creating third-ad-interim injunction in favour of the Appellant/Contractor against party rights-Thus, the Trial Court had rightly declined to issue an dismissed. [pp. 1071, 1074] E, F & N the Respondents / Defendants---Appeal, being
merit-less, was Muhammad Tahir Jamal, Advocate v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 2020 Lah. 407 ref.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
-O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 56-Suit for declaration, permanent and Mandatory Injunction--Injunction, seeking of-Other modes of resolution between the parties, (Appellant/Contractor) assailed order passed by the Civil Court whereby availability of-Scope-Plaintiff / Appellant (Construction Company) ('impugned order')---Validity-In the present case, the contract the request of the Appellant to seek ad-interim injunction was declined between the Appellant/Contractor and the Respondent / Authority carried different modes of settlement of disputes---The presence of an arbitration clause in the contract between the Respondent Authority and the Appellant/Contractor precluded adjudication by the Court and instead directed the parties toward resolution through arbitration Various dispute resolution mechanisms, as provided under the contract, were of wide amplitude---Therefore, all contentions raised by the herein could also be raised before the Arbitrator Appellant/Contractor her and/or other r other dispute resolution forums---Appellant/Contractor would be at liberty to get the disputes and differences, arising from and related to the contract, resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the contract---Thus, the Trial Court had rightly declined to issue an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Appellant/Contractor against the Respondents/Defendants---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. [pp. 1072, 1074] H & N
Raja Imran Akhtar v. National Highway Authority and others 2019 CLC 1189 ref.
(d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
S. 56(d)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Suit against the Government---Injunctions against Government, seeking of-Scope---Public duties---Scope---Contract of the work pertained to repair/maintenance of road between the Construction Company /
Vel XL
Contractor and the National Highway Authority / Authー Contractor filed the civil suit along with application for interim the Respondent Authority from creating any third-party rights in The with the prayer to suspend the Notice of Termination and to Contract-Plaintiff (Construction Compa (Appellant/Contractor) assailed order passed by the Civil Court wher Appellant the request of the Appellant to seek ad-interim injunction was decent Cimpugned order)Validity Under S.56(d) of the Specificating Act, there is bar to issue injunction and interfering with the ult duties of any Department of the Government The State or instrumentality, when engaged in contracts, has a duty to act fairy reasonably and in the public interest-The contract inter se the portin was to carry out a public duty, ... to maintain and develop the rond for the public benefit by using the funds from the public exchequer public duty is one in the discharge of which the public te, the liabilities Of course, public or community does not necessarily se community at large is interested, as affecting their legal rights and always means all the citizens of the country or the State, but may alss refer to a defined class of citizens-Respondent / Authority functions as the backbone of Pakistan's transportation system, plays an important role in the development of micro and macro economy, and also Enhances the national integration by increasing the social and economic dependence between the provinces and neighboring countries---Respondent Authority, in furtherance of public benefit and welfare, contracted with the Appellant/Contractor for the Periodic Maintenance Work (Structural the Appellant/Contractor could not point out any error of law in the impugned order, wherein the injunction was rightly denied under S.56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877-Thus, the Trial Court had rightly declined to issue an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Overlay)-Therefore, Appellant/Contractor against the Respondents/Defendants---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. (pp. 1072, 1073, 1074] I, J, K, M & N
Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baloch 1998 SCMR 376 and Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Region, St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498 ref.
Sahibzada Uzair Hashim for Appellant.
Ms. Raheema Khan for NHA.
Ex-parte Respondent No. 4.
Assisted by: Ms. Amna Danial Khawaja, Law Clerk.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 2025.