1994 PLP 1484 (SCMR)
Raja MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 21 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UNION COUNCIL, BAJNIAL and another‑‑‑Respondents,
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1484 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | Raja MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 21 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UNION COUNCIL, BAJNIAL and another‑‑‑Respondents, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1484 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1484 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1484 (SCMR) (Raja MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 21 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UNION COUNCIL, BAJNIAL and another‑‑‑Respondents,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
- Kh. M. Yousaf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from 4the judgment dated 8‑3‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petitions Nos. 195 and 194 of 1992). ' Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)..‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 166. 139, 156 & 173‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185 (3)‑‑‑High Court's refusal to entertain Constitutional petition on the ground that adequate alternate remedy was provided by law governing the case and same not having been exhausted, Constitutional petition would not lie‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Question of fact which was agitated before High Court could more properly and easily be debated and agitated before the functionaries mentioned in the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and even remedy by way of suit could be availed of particularly in cases involving disputed question of fact and such disputes could be better agitated before a forum which could easily record evidence‑‑‑High Court's judgment being unexceptional no justification for interference was warranted‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Messrs Punjab Feeds Ltd. v. Abdul Ghafoor 1990 SCMR 439 (2) ref,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ ‑‑‑These petitions have arisen out of the refusal by the High Court to entertain Constitutional (Writ Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that adequate alternate remedy is prodded by law governing the case and same not having been exhausted the writ petitions do not lie. `Learned counsel has contended that section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 does not provide remedy in so far as the levy of impugned tax is concerned. He has also contended that the Provincial Government had by a Circular Letter prohibited the Union Council from levying the impugned tax. Learned counsel for the caveator has in addition to section 166 relied on sections 139, 156 and 173 which, according to him, furnish enough alternative remedies which are all adequate, therefore, without exhausting the relevant remedies the writ petition could not be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in facts and circumstances of this case those provisions are not attracted. We do not agree with him. The questions of fact which were agitated before the High Court including the question, whether, the tax in question in reality is not a market fee as asserted from the respondents side could more properly and easily be debated and agitated before the functionaries mentioned in above‑referred provisions (and even the remedy by way of suit in the circumstances can be filed particularly in cases involving the disputed question of fact) can be better agitated before a forum which can easily record evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent also cited Messrs Punjab Feeds Ltd. v. Abdul Ghafoor 1990 SCMR 439(2), to show that the provisions contained in the Ordinance provide sufficient adequate alternative remedy which is normally followed in such like cases. In so far as the judgment relied upon goes it does show that a similar case has gone before the Commissioner prior to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In the light of the foreging discussion the impugned judgment being unexceptionable, we find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. AA./M‑2029/G Leave refused.