2004 PLP 1587 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1587 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1587 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1587 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1587 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ms. Yasmin Sehgal, A.A.-G. for Respondents (on Court's Notice).
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 7-5-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 6827 of 1995).
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Alternate remedy, when a ground for non-maintainability of petition
High Court dismissed petition after ten years of its admission on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of invoking arbitration clause in the agreement
Mere availability of alternate remedy would not be a ground for holding Constitutional petition as non-maintainable without applying judicial mind to question, whether same was in fact available, if so, whether same was adequate and efficacious remedy-- Availability of alternate remedy would not render Constitutional petition as un maintainable nor same was a matter affecting jurisdiction of Court to entertain Constitutional petition
Availability of alternate remedy would only be relevant to decide, whether discretion under Art. 199 of the Constitution should be exercised or not, which decision would be made on judicial application of mind to facts of each case
Finding with regard to non-maintainability of Constitutional petition would constitute a decision that High Court was not vested with jurisdiction to entertain same
Commissioner had been named as arbitrator in the agreement
Office of Commissioner had been abolished under new District Government System, thus arbitration clause had been rendered ineffective and alleged alternate remedy would not be available
Supreme Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment and remanded case to High Court for its decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHIKH, J.
The Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judge in the Chambers of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated, 7-5-2003 for the reason that alternate remedy of invoking arbitration clause in the agreement was available which should be availed against which leave is sought.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted;-- (a) That mere availability of alternate remedy was not a ground for holding that Constitutional petition was not maintainable unless it had been decided by application of Judicial mind whether the same was in fact, available and if so, it was adequate and efficacious remedy. (b) That even, if such alternate remedy was available, the same did not render the Constitutional petition unmaintainable, for the availability of alternate remedy is only relevant to decide whether discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in the matter should be exercised or not which decision was to be taken on judicial application of mind to the facts of each case, therefore, it was not a matter affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Constitutional petition and the finding that the same was not maintainable constitutes a decision that the Court was not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the Constitutional petition. (c) That the writ petition was dismissed after ten years of its admission, therefore, it was not a case of exercise of discretion in favour of not to decide the case on merits. (d) That in the agreement, the Commissioner by virtue of his office was named as arbitrator and the said office having been abolished under the new District Government System, therefore, the said clause had been rendered ineffective, therefore, even the alleged alternate remedy was not available.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned judgment, these aspects of the case appear to have not been given consideration.
4. Miss Yasmin Sehgal, learned A.A.-G. Punjab present in the Court in connection with some other case, was given notice to assist the Court. She has been heard.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the same is accepted, judgment, dated 7-5-2003 of the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the said Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits.
6. It is an old matter, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction for expeditious decision of the writ petition.
7. He shall approach the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court as it is his prerogative to regulate the roster and pass appropriate order. S.A.K./M-74/S Case remanded.