1998 PLP 706, (SCMR)
President S.M. Ayoob and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, TRADE ORGANIZATION and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 706, (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | President S.M. Ayoob and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, TRADE ORGANIZATION and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 706, (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 706, (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 706, (SCMR) (President S.M. Ayoob and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, TRADE ORGANIZATION and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 28th March, 1996.
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Writ Petition No.D-389 of 1994 was mainly dismissed by the Sindh High Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable in law as the alternate remedy was available to the petitioners and resort to that had already been made without awaiting the result thereof, the observation of the Court was untenable because the circumstances of the instant . case required determination on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑2‑1995 of the High. Court of Sindh Hyderabad Circuit in Constitutional Petition No. D‑389 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Alternate remedy‑‑ Constitutional petition was dismissed on the ground that alternate remedy being available to petitioner resort to that had already been made and without awaiting result thereof Constitutional petition had been filed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court had rightly dismissed Constitutional petition on ground of availability of alternate remedy to petitioners and having resorted thereto, petitioners had not awaited result thereof‑‑‑Petitioners stated before Supreme Court that their appeal having. been disposed of by Authority, they intended to challenge that order before High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.
Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Writ Petition No.D-389 of 1994 was mainly dismissed by the Sindh High Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable in law as the alternate remedy was available to the petitioners and resort to that had already been made without awaiting the result thereof, the observation of the Court was untenable because the circumstances of the instant . case required determination on merits. In our view the learned Judges of the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy to the petitioners and having filed appeal against the order of Director, Trade Organization, before the Federal Government. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Federal Government has disposed of the appeal and the petitioners intend to challenge that order before the Sindh High Court in writ jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case and dismiss this petition. A.A./H-11/S Leave refused