Disputed questions of fact

Writ jurisdiction, being discretionary and extraordinary in nature, could not be invoked to supplant statutory mechanisms designed for the resolution of factual disputes requiring the examination of evidence

Thus, the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction must remain an exception rather than the rule, reserved only for cases where no equally effective alternative exists

Superior courts must refrain from adjudicating disputed questions of fact that necessitate evidentiary inquiry

This principle, firmly entrenched in judicial discipline, ensures that constitutional courts exercising extraordinary jurisdiction do not assume the role of fact-finding tribunals

The rationale underlying this restraint was put in place to preserve the integrity of specialized statutory forums vested with the competence to examine factual controversies through proper evidentiary procedures.

In the present case certain fundamental issues were congregated which needed to be established and resolved; that is to say, whether the petitioners (employees) were actually employed by the contractor and, despite this engagement, whether they could claim regularization or permanency in their jobs as employees of Karachi Port Trust (KPT); and whether the outsourcing arrangement between KPT and the contractor was genuine or was based on a sham-arrangement to circumvent the obligations and benefits arising from labour laws; and finally, whether the petitioners, by serving several years against permanent posts, without any gaps, had attained the status of permanent workers by virtue of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

All these crucial disputed questions or factual controversies could not be decided by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction

Petitions for leave to appeal were disposed of.

Scope and purpose of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court stated.

High Court declined to exercise its discretion under Art. 199 of the Constitution as petitioners belonged to political party that had considerable representation in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

Instead of involving judicial branch of State, petitioners had adequate remedy to evolve a mechanism of accountability in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

Supremacy of the Constitution and Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) could only be upheld if chosen representatives resolve to settle their disputes without involving judicial branch

Supremacy of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) was undermined when controversies such as disqualification of chosen representatives were brought before High Court

High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Controversial question of facts adjudication of which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of the parties can be determined only by Courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter and on such ground writ petition is incompetent.

Property in question was not described, therefore no specific possession could be handed over or described in revenue papers

Petitioners themselves accepted specification of Khsara numbers in favour of respondents/ decree holders before Federal Land Commission, where revision petitions were pending

Principle of approbate and reprobate had come into play as petitioners were not allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath

Admission on the part of petitioners regarding purchase of property from some of decree holders amounted to an estoppel against them, as it precluded a person from denying truth of a narration earlier made by him, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution declined to interfere in the matter as there were some factual aspects and the same required recording of evidence

Petitioners failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the orders assailed by them

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Disputed questions of facts were raised by the petitioner and since the investigation was pending therefore, adequate alternative remedy was available to the petitioner whereby he could agitate his case before the Investigating Officer

Besides petitioner, other accused persons were also nominated in the FIR but the petitioner had only sought quashing of FIR to his extent which was not permissible under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petition was filed without proper documentation, disclosure of facts, cause of action and that too without any plausible explanation for filing the petition in the year 2020 irrespective of the fact that almost all the petitioners were terminated in the year 2013

Petitioners had not given the details that after joining their duties for how much period they had performed their duties and from which particular date their salaries were stopped

Such questions could not be resolved by High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution and, similarly, the question of delay was required to be examined with reference to the facts of each case

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner sought implementation of notification issued by Government whereby it had imposed complete ban on cultivation of Government land in the desert area for a period of 90 days

Validity

Several disputed questions of facts were involved in the petition and civil suit in the court of law was the only remedy to go through the relevant record and evidences of the parties

Dispute as agitated by the petitioner could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction as High Court had limited jurisdiction in like matters to dilate upon

No right of petitioner was established on record

Petitioner was at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under the law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Where fraud was alleged, civil suit in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 read with S.9 of C.P.C. was to be filed and the Revenue Courts lacked jurisdiction

Disputed questions of fact and allegation of fraud regarding cancellation of mutation could not be decided by the Revenue Courts

In such-like cases, the parties ought to approach the Civil Courts.

Such questions could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Such dispute could not be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction as the High Court had limited jurisdiction to dilate upon such matters

Petition was hit by doctrine of laches as the same was filed after about 7 years of the accrual of cause of action

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Extraordinary jurisdiction is primarily intended for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts

Controverted questions of fact, adjudication on which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties, can be determined only by courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter.

Contractual rights, commitments, undertakings and obligations had to be enforced through courts of ordinary jurisdiction which could not be interfered with by the High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction

Normal remedy in such eventualities was a suit for enforcement of contractual rights and obligations

High Court could not go in deep investigation of disputed question of fact which necessitated taking of evidence

Such exercise could more appropriately be done in the ordinary civil procedure by filing a suit

Constitutional petition, being misconceived in facts and law, was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Grievance of petitioner was that he was not given the compensation due to the damage caused to his land by water logging

Disposal of poisonous water of Thermal Power Station was stated to be the main reason of water logging

Validity

Veracity of the documents brought on record and claims and counter claims of the parties could not be determined being disputed questions of fact

High Court left it for the competent authority to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the claims of petitioner

Authority concerned was directed by the High Court to constitute a committee to conduct an inquiry with regard to the compensation to be given to the petitioner for his damaged land, to fix responsibility in the matter and to take appropriate measures in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and prayed that he might not be evicted from the subject premises, which was in his lawful possession, being his private property

Validity

Constitutional petition was not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim of ownership

Authorities had not issued any allotment order in favour of the petitioner

Mere possession of the subject premises could not confer ownership rights upon the petitioner to claim protection of Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution

Petitioner had the remedy to approach civil court for grant of similar relief

High Court could not dilate upon the disputed claims and counter claims of the parties under constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Where such questions arose, constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked.

Jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., was primarily intended for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority could be established without any elaborate inquiry into complicated and disputed facts

Controverted questions of fact, adjudication upon which was only possible after obtaining all types of evidence, could be determined only by a court having the jurisdiction of a Trial Court

Superior Courts should not involve themselves into investigation of disputed questions of facts which necessitated taking of evidence, as same could be done more appropriately by the Trial Court.