Availability of alternate remedy

2025 CLD 913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking ofAvailability of alternate remedyScopeConstitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a routine matter of rightInstead, it has specific limitations that must be considered by the High Court when exercising its discretionary powers

Article 199 of the Constitution outlines these limitations, including the requirement that alternate remedies must have been exhausted.

2023 YLRN 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 22-A & 22-BEx-officio Justice of PeacePowers ofRegistration of FIR on directions of Justice of PeaceAvailability of alternate remedyScope

Applicant alleged that the culprits had caused lathi blows to the deceased; that the deceased told complainant party that the culprits had robbed him of the mobile and cash and on his resistance they injured him and that the applicant along with others took the deceased, then injured, to the hospital where nominated accused/doctor refused to treat the injured and within their sight injured succumbed to the injuries

Report of Police revealed that they had received information that a dead body of an addict was lying in the hospital; that after fulfillment of codal formalities they handed over the dead body to his cousin; that the nominated persons had not committed the murder of deceased; that the police received a death certificate in which the Medical Officer had clearly mentioned the cause of death as heavy intoxication and that the application was false and baseless

Applicant had alternate remedy to file direct complaint before the competent court but he had not done so

Application revealed that there was previous litigation between the parties and in that vengeance the application was filed

Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside.

2022 PLD 278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 20 & 199Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutionsPower to control suspected personsDiscretionary jurisdiction of Deputy CommissionerJudicial review, non-availability ofAvailability of alternate remedyScope

Grievance of the petitioner pertained to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby he was barred to enter in a district to take part in any majlis and making any speech there because according to the respondents the previously registered FIR against the petitioner for making derogatory/objectionable speech was clearly reflective of the fact that his speech could cause serious prejudice to the law and order of the society and pose a potential threat to the peace and tranquility of the area

Validity

Deputy Commissioner was competent under S. 5(1) of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, to pass an order directing that a person shall not enter, reside or remain in any area as specified therein in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety or public interest or the maintenance of public order

Executive functionaries had to be given autonomy of discretion with enough space to carry out their job without let or hindrance as it was essential as well as expedient that exercise of freedom was to be reasonably regulated on administrative considerations on the paramountcy of larger public interest because the public functionaries and executive authorities were the best judges to evaluate the nature and magnitude of threats so as to take all appropriate remedial measures/steps required to obviate impending disasters and these were not justiciable issues

Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was well within his competence and defined domain

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2021 YLR 2271 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 249-A & 265-KConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of FIRAvailability of alternate remedyEffectPetitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and sought quashing of FIRValidityPetitioner was nominated in the FIR

Trial Court had the discretion to acquit the accused at any stage of the proceedings of trial if it arrived at the conclusion that there was no sufficient incriminating material

Petitioner had sought quashing of criminal case without availing alternate remedy provided under Ss.249-A & 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2021 CLC 1379 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.9Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877), S. 42Suit for declaration and recovery of damages etc.Agreement contained clause regarding "Resolution of Differences"Availability of alternate remedyCivil Court, Jurisdiction ofScope

Plaintiff/company and defendant / United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF) entered into an agreement by introducing as Program Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for a period of one year

Plaintiff, being aggrieved from the Audit Findings of PCA conducted by the defendant, sought declaration that the said audit was biased and contrary to the provisions of PCA

Held, that PCA contained Clause 55 regarding "Resolution of Differences" which stipulated that if there was a dispute, controversy or claim between the parties they would try to reach agreement amicably by direct negotiation and if no agreement could be reached within the period of thirty (30) days, then the dispute or controversy or claim would be decided by the UNICEF Regional Director for the region (that included Pakistan) and the Chief Executive of partner meeting together, in person or otherwise, to consider such matter

In said respect, it was noted that the appellant/plaintiff without availing the alternate remedy as provided under relevant Clause of the PCA, approached the inappropriate forum i.e. Civil Court for redressal of his grievances

Suit before the Civil Court was not competent before exhausting the available remedy under the law

Where a special remedy was provided, the same could not be bypassed and the Civil Courts should not be approached directly without exhausting the proper forum in the hierarchy for the subject purpose

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts was also impliedly barred where an alternate remedy had been provided under the law, provided that the authority was not exercised in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority

Appellant/plaintiff had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing his suit

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 YLR 75 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 156(1)(89)(8)Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionAvailability of alternate remedyEffect

Petitioner had assailed confiscation of fertilizer of foreign origin which was seized by customs authorities when it was being smuggled out of Pakistan

Validity

Petitioner, instead of availing proper remedy of challenging order-in-original before the Collector (Appeals) under S. 193 of Customs Act, 1969 had invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner, in presence of alternate remedy, could not be allowed to ventilate his grievance through Constitutional petition bypassing the competent forum

Assertions of petitioner revolved around factual dispute, truthfulness or otherwise of which could not be determined without inquiry and recording of evidence

High Court, in circumstances, dismissed the constitutional petition.

2016 PLD 1 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18 & 23Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityConstitutional petition filed prematurely before any final orderAvailability of alternate remedy

Disputed questions of fact requiring probe/inquiry-Effect-Non-issuance/non­renewal of Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs)

Power of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to cancel, impound or confiscate CNIC

Scope and procedure

Contention of petitioners was that when they approached the National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA") either for issuance of CNICs or for renewal of the same, certain documents were demanded to be placed before NADRA, which were, accordingly, produced, however, NADRA was reluctant to issue the CNICs

Validity

In case of any doubt, NADRA did have the authority to enquire and investigate about the CNIC issued to a person

NADRA could ask the holder of a CNIC to surrender his card (section 17 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000)

NADRA had the power to cancel, impound or confiscate such card by making an order in writing under its seal or by an officer authorised by it in slick behalf (section 18(1) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000)

No such like order could be made, unless such person had been given a notice in writing by calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of cancellation/impounding/confiscation should not be made

Against such an order, the remedy available to the aggrieved person was that of an appeal to the Federal Government provided under S.18(3) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000, within 30 days of the order

Case record of the present case revealed that neither had CNICs of the petitioners been impounded/cancelled or confiscated, nor had notices under S.17 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 been issued to them for the said purposes

Cases of the petitioners had been sent to the concerned committees for the purpose of verification and no adverse orders had been passed against them so far within the purview of S.18 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, thus, the present petition being premature, was not maintainable

Even otherwise, in case of any adverse order, the aggrieved person(s)/petitioners could file an appeal before the Federal Government within the purview of S.18(3) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000, thus, on this ground also the constitutional petition was not maintainable

Although a number of documents, annexed with the present petition, prima facie, established the fact that the petitioners were nationals of Pakistan, however, fate of the present petition could not be decided on the basis of such documents, authenticity of which could only be determined and established before a Civil Court and it required a full fledged enquiry and scrutiny, that too, after providing full opportunity of hearing to both the parties

NADRA alleged that documents presented by the petitioners could not be construed as conclusive proof for determining status of the petitioners, because some of the documents were prepared through foul play in connivance with the officials in the Provincial Government

Thorough probe and investigation would be needed to set such controversy at rest, which could not be resolved in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly as being not maintainable.

2014 PLD 123 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Judicial reviewConstitutional petition before the High CourtMaintainabilityAlternate remedyScopeJudicial review could be exercised if the alternate remedy was not adequate or efficacious

Alternate remedy must be capable of achieving the same purpose as was sought to be achieved through the constitutional petition.

2013 YLR 2218 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-FDishonestly issuing a chequeQuashing of F.I.R. under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.ScopeCommencement of trialAvailability of alternate remedyEffect

Accused had business relations with the complainant and to pay an outstanding amount accused issued a cheque to the complainant, which got dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds

F.I.R. was registered after proper inquiry

Trial in the case had commenced, therefore, there was no reason to quash the F.I.R.

Accused had the remedy to move an application before the Trial Court under either S. 265-K Cr.P.C. or S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.

Petition for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed accordingly.

2013 MLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art 199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeAvailability of alternate remedyEffect

Under Art. 199 of the Constitution it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in every case especially when an adequate remedy in the form of a private complaint was available to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 PCrLJ 1337 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 249-A, 265-K & 561-APetition for quashment of order/proceedingsScopeAvailability of alternate remedyEffect

General practice of High Court was that no proceedings should be quashed in view of the powers conferred under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., unless the Trial Court had exercised its powers under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.