 |
| Stay order against road construction |
⚖️ سڑک کا کام صرف 13.9 فیصد مکمل ہوا، ٹھیکیدار کو حکمِ امتناعی نہ مل سکا
🔹 معاہدے کے باوجود سڑک کا کام مکمل نہ کیا گیا
نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی اور ایک تعمیراتی کمپنی کے درمیان سڑک کی مرمت اور دیکھ بھال کا معاہدہ ہوا۔ معاہدے کے تحت تعمیراتی کمپنی کو مقررہ مدت میں کام مکمل کرنا تھا، لیکن کمپنی مقررہ وقت میں منصوبہ مکمل نہ کر سکی۔
🔹 متعدد مواقع ملنے کے باوجود کام آگے نہ بڑھا
عدالت کے ریکارڈ کے مطابق نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی کی جانب سے کمپنی کو بار بار مشینری منتقل کرنے اور کام شروع کرنے کی ہدایات دی گئیں، لیکن اس کے باوجود منصوبے کا صرف 13.9 فیصد کام مکمل ہو سکا۔
🔹 معاہدہ ختم کرنے کا نوٹس جاری کیا گیا
مسلسل تاخیر اور معاہدے کی شرائط پوری نہ ہونے پر نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی نے کمپنی کو معاہدہ ختم کرنے کا نوٹس جاری کیا۔ تعمیراتی کمپنی نے اس نوٹس کو چیلنج کرتے ہوئے سول عدالت میں مقدمہ دائر کیا اور عبوری حکمِ امتناعی کی درخواست کی۔
🔹 عوامی مفاد بھی عدالت کے سامنے اہم تھا
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاملہ عام سڑک کی مرمت اور دیکھ بھال سے متعلق تھا جسے عوام استعمال کرتے ہیں۔ منصوبے میں دو سے تین سال تک تاخیر سے عام لوگوں کو مشکلات کا سامنا ہو رہا تھا، اس لیے سہولت کا توازن بھی تعمیراتی کمپنی کے حق میں نہیں تھا۔
🔹 مالی نقصان کو ناقابلِ تلافی نقصان نہیں سمجھا گیا
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ عبوری حکمِ امتناعی کے لیے صرف مقدمہ کا بادی النظر میں مضبوط ہونا کافی نہیں، بلکہ سہولت کا توازن اور ناقابلِ تلافی نقصان بھی ثابت ہونا ضروری ہے۔ موجودہ معاملے میں مالی نقصان کو ایسا ناقابلِ تلافی نقصان قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا تھا جس کی بنیاد پر حکمِ امتناعی جاری کیا جائے۔
🔹 معاہدے میں تنازع حل کرنے کے طریقے موجود تھے
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ فریقین کے معاہدے میں تنازعات کے حل کے لیے مختلف طریقہ کار، بشمول ثالثی، موجود تھے۔ تعمیراتی کمپنی اپنے معاہداتی اختلافات متعلقہ فورم یا ثالث کے سامنے اٹھا سکتی تھی۔
🔹 حکومت کے عوامی فرائض میں رکاوٹ نہیں ڈالی جا سکتی
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مخصوص ریلیف ایکٹ کی دفعہ 56(d) کے تحت حکومت کے عوامی فرائض میں مداخلت کے لیے حکمِ امتناعی جاری کرنے پر پابندی ہے۔ نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی کا بنیادی مقصد قومی شاہراہوں کی تعمیر، ترقی، آپریشن اور دیکھ بھال کے ذریعے عوام کو محفوظ سفری سہولت فراہم کرنا ہے۔
⚖️ عدالت کا حتمی فیصلہ
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ تعمیراتی کمپنی مقررہ وقت میں کام مکمل کرنے میں ناکام رہی، متعدد مواقع کے باوجود منصوبے کو آگے نہیں بڑھایا اور اس کی ناکامی کی وجہ سے عوامی مفاد متاثر ہو رہا تھا۔ اس لیے کمپنی حکمِ امتناعی حاصل کرنے کی حقدار نہیں تھی۔
چنانچہ سول عدالت کی جانب سے عبوری حکمِ امتناعی کی درخواست مسترد کرنے کا فیصلہ درست قرار دیا گیا اور تعمیراتی کمپنی کی اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
📌 حوالہ: 2026 C.I.C. 1059، اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ
Must read judgment.
2026 C I. C 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 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 Appellant/Contractor as monetary loss is not considered as an irreparable loss-The deliberate failure on part of the Appellant/Contractor could not assist him in obtaining an injunction against the Respondent/Authority, especially, when the project 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.
(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 uction Company /Contractor and the National Highway Authority ority / 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 of international standards to travelers/commuters/passengers---Therefore, the Respondent/ 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 in case of default on part of the Appellant/Contractor, the Respondent/Authority was authorized and entitled to employ and pay other 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-party rights-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.
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 (1 of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 56-Suit for declaration, permanent and Mandatory Injunction---Injunction, seeking of Other modes of resolution between the parties, availability of Scope-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---In the present case, the contract 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 Appellant/Contractor herein could also be raised before the Arbitrator and/or 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.
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/ 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---Under S.56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, there is bar to issue injunction and interfering with the public duties of any Department of the Government-The State or its instrumentality, when engaged in contracts, has a duty to act f uty to act fairly, reasonably and in the public and in the public interest---The contract inter se the parties was to carry out a public duty, i.e., to maintain and develop the road for the public benefit by using the funds from the public exchequer---A public duty is one in the discharge of which the public ie., the community at large is interested, as affecting their legal rights and liabilities---Of course, public or community does not necessarily or always means all the citizens of the country or the State, but may also 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 Overlay)---Therefore, 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 Appellant/Contractor against the Respondents/Defendants---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed.
Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Region, Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baloch 1998 SCMR 376 and
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.