Jurisdiction of High Court

When relief requested was one of certiorari (Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution), habeas corpus (Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution), or quo warranto (Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution), only the Regular Benches of High Courts were competent to entertain the matter

Conversely, where petitioner sought relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition (Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution), jurisdiction was rested exclusively with Constitutional Benches of High Courts

It was the "character of the relief" claimed that used to determine as to which Bench had the authority to hear the petition.

In case of concurrent findings of the courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited.

After submission of challan, Trial Court had framed the charge under the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979, as well as P.P.C

Complainant was examined before the trial Court and in his examination-in-chief, the complainant had categorically deposed that he received information that some unknown persons caused injuries to his nephew and cousin while committing robbery of motor cycle from them

Appellant was tried in consonance of the charge and on conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under the provisions of P.P.C, but before handing down the judgment the trial Court did not alter the charge

Besides, the sentence awarded to the appellant also exceeded the term of two years

Per Ordinance-II of 1982, second proviso to Art.24 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was inserted which provided the offences punishable under Art.9 or 17 shall be triable by the Court of Session not by the Magistrate authorized under S.30, Cr.P.C, hence, an appeal from an order under either of said Articles or from an order under any provision of that Ordinance which imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years shall lie to Federal Shariat Court

Since the complainant had specifically mentioned in the FIR, he received information that some unknown culprits while committing robbery from his cousin and nephew had caused injuries to them, therefore, he got registered FIR under Ss.302, 324, 337-A(i), 34 P.P.C read with S.17(4) of the Ordinance

Hence, the Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant under S.17(4) of the Ordinance and the appellant was also tried for said charges

In such circumstances, appeal in hand was completely misconceived and not maintainable as it had wrongly been presented before the High Court

Consequently, the Additional Registrar of High Court was directed to send the file of instant jail appeal to the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan through its Registrar for further necessary action/proceedings.

High Court lacks authority under Art. 199 of the Constitution and S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.,to consolidate FIRs registered outside its territorial jurisdiction

Consolidation of FIRs is not permissible within a single High Court if FIRs are lodged in different jurisdictions or different Provinces

Provision of S. 185, Cr.P.C., does not grant High Court the power to transfer or consolidate cases across different High Courts or jurisdictions

Power to transfer cases between different High Courts is vested in Provincial Government under S. 527(1), Cr.P.C. and with the Supreme Court.

Petitioners claimed to be Wali and legal heirs of deceased but for reasons known to deceased party and notables, they were neither made party to the compromise nor any thing was brought on record regarding all surviving legal heirs of the deceased

Contention of petitioners was that their mother was illiterate lady who was not properly represented in the compromise as well as before Trial Court and petitioners were minors, who were unaware about the fact of the murder of their late father and acceptance of the compromise, which was only arrived at between the widow of deceased and respondent

Validity

As per photocopies of CNICs of petitioners issued by NADRA authorities petitioners were minors at the time of filing of petition

There was nothing on record to show the circumstances, which compelled widow of deceased and respondents not to disclose their names at the time of compromise

Such fact also escaped from the notice of Trial Court

It was not possible for High Court to re-open the case on merits in exercise of power conferred under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., that too, after lapse of more than ten (10) years

Petitioners were at liberty to avail remedy under S. 417, Cr.P.C. by following the law with legal exceptions

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Order of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Court though had been passed in favour of landladies but without any increase and they had not assailed it before the Appellate Court either through direct appeal or cross objection in terms of O.XLI, R.22, C.P.C, thus, while sitting in writ jurisdiction such prayer of the landladies was not maintainable for determination of the enhanced rent

High Court turned down the claim of the landladies accordingly.

Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service

Though jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the "Constitution" to some extent is limited with respect to the orders ensuing from the departmental proceedings determining the guilt or otherwise of an employee but High Court being custodian of the rights of citizens cannot shut its eyes when patent illegalities are floating on the surface of the record

Right of earning is right to life and no one can be allowed to take away such right in a clandestine manner

Petitioners were proceeded against in a non-transparent and haphazard manner in the departmental proceedings, which culminated into their dismissal from service

Impugned orders were apparently suffering from patent illegalities and were against the principles of natural justice

Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits.

Gap in law owing to declaration of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 as ultra vires of Federal Legislature, which had been challenged in Supreme Court

Effect

Lack of action on part of Provincial government

Plenary powers of High Court

Scope

Enforcement of fundamental rights and protection of the Constitution is the primary function of a High Court under the Constitution and as per the oath sworn by the Judges of High Court

Article 199(2) of the Constitution gives unabridged power to High Court for enforcement of fundamental rights under Chapter I, Part-II, which is subject only to the Constitution

Till the decision of Supreme Court, enforcement of fundamental rights cannot be left in lurch

Government was directed to continue following the directions of High Court for price control of essential commodities, even if there was any gap or absence of relevant law

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service

Though jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the "Constitution" to some extent is limited with respect to the orders ensuing from the departmental proceedings determining the guilt or otherwise of an employee but High Court being custodian of the rights of citizens cannot shut its eyes when patent illegalities are floating on the surface of the record

Right of earning is right to life and no one can be allowed to take away such right in a clandestine manner

Petitioners were proceeded against in a non-transparent and haphazard manner in the departmental proceedings, which culminated into their dismissal from service

Impugned orders were apparently suffering from patent illegalities and were against the principles of natural justice

Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits.

Respondents/decree holders (beneficiaries) instituted a suit for damages and compensation on account of fatal accident, which was decreed ex parte in favour of beneficiaries

Decretal amount was deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan, but was not released to the beneficiaries

Penal interest was claimed by the beneficiaries for not releasing the decretal amount with interest

Contention of the petitioner was that since the amount had been deposited with the Court, therefore, beneficiaries could not claim penal interest

Validity

High Court held that Government of Sindh was objecting to the release of the amount even at that point in time when they preferred second appeal

There was no doubt that whatever the accrued amount would have been, it was to be disbursed amongst the legal heirs but as long as the amount was not paid and realized by the beneficiaries, the judgment and decree could not be deemed to have been satisfied and the amount of interest would continue to accumulate, and deposit alone at a belated stage was not enough to discharge the judgment-debtor from the claim of interest piled up during the period it was not released to the beneficiaries

High Court repelled the contention of the petitioner that it was on account of Court's error that the amount was not released as it was always objected to by the Government of Sindh, hence, the petitioner was under an obligation to pay the interest till it was completely realized by the beneficiaries and/or the decree was satisfied

Judgment and decree was not challenged before an appellate forum as no material was placed before the High Court, therefore, the interest would continue to pile up till its realization

By payment of additional amount for the unaccounted period and release of it to the beneficiaries, the decree had been satisfied

High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution and thus could not probe further as the challenge in this appeal was neither an order which was unconstitutional nor any jurisdictional error was exposed in the exercise conducted by two forums below, thus, on this score also present petition lacked the ingredients that could enable the High Court to interfere with the orders of the executing Court in respect of the amount, which had already been released to the beneficiaries

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below could not be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of its judgment under S.100 or S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; unless the Courts below while recording the finding of facts had either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or finding of the facts recorded by the two Courts below was perverse.

Violation of Service Rules or Regulations framed by the Statutory bodies under the powers derived from Statutes, in absence of any adequate or efficacious remedy, could be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction

Where conditions of service of employees of a Statutory body were not regulated by Rules/Regulations framed under the Statute but only Rules or instructions issued for its internal use, any violation thereof could not normally be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction and civil servants would be governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant'

In all the public employments created by the Statutory bodies and governed by the Statutory Rules/Regulations, unless the appointments were purely contractual, the principles of natural justice could not be dispensed with in disciplinary proceedings

Where the action of a statutory authority was in disregard of the procedural requirements and was violative of the principles of natural justice , it could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction

Intra court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere fact that such court might have taken different view was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Petitioner sought his appointment on the ground that he was eligible for the post in question and even if no mark was given by Selection Committee he could have been selected

Validity

Petitioner had requisite qualification and obtained higher marks in screening test but it was not the only criteria for final selection rather it was only for shortlisting purpose

Selection Committee had unanimously declared petitioner as failed and no marks were given

Interviewing committee had to adjudge short listed candidates for the purpose of selection of specific job

Interview was subjective test and it was not possible for Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of an interview board, as it was in the domain of members of the Committee

Petitioner was not awarded any marks in interview, as such, he was not placed in merit list for the purpose of selection

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grant of bail is a concurrent jurisdiction of Trial Court as well as of the High Court.

Constitutional courts do not, with ease, abdicate or surrender their jurisdiction to exercise judicial power, if the Court is of the view that order under challenge is illegal and outside the four corners of law and no other alternate or special remedy has been prescribed by law

No decision within the meaning of statute if there were anything done contrary to the essence of justice

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to judicially review orders, notifications and acts of Executive i.e. Delimitation Authority and Delimitation Committee is not barred.

Petitioner prayed for restraining order on the premise that appeal was pending adjudication before the respondent/authority being first forum of appeal in terms of statutory remedy and that petitioner had the right that his pending appeal be heard on merits before initiating recovery of disputed liability

Held, that appeal was fixed before the Commissioner (Appeals) but that significant fact was not disclosed in the petition, which amounted to withholding of material information

Injunction, if granted, would have the cause/effect of impeding the collection of public revenues

In absence of satisfaction that injunction solicited would not have the effect of impeding collection of public revenues, High Court could not grant injunction when no case of any jurisdictional error was pointed out

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

In absence of any glaring illegality/violation of fundamental rights, it was imperative that the Courts should exercise judicial restraint for passing any adverse order, which could potentially hinder/nullify any government initiative, particularly taken for the security enhancement

Judicial restraint would encourage the judges to exercise their powers with restraint/wisdom and to limit the exercise of their own powers to intervene in the matters relating to policy of the Government having financial perspective/outcome/exercise.

Held, that the appellants were, admittedly, the civil servants and their prayer pertained to terms/conditions of a civil servant

Appellants had an alternate efficacious remedy by approaching the departmental appellate authority and then the respective Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance

Jurisdiction of High Court was barred

Constitutional petition was not maintainable due to the bar contained under Art.212 of the Constitution

Intra Court appeal was dismissed in limine.

Where conclusion of law and fact did not ,in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court no matter howsoever erroneous the decision might be

Section 115, C.P.C., could not be invoked unless impugned decision involved matter of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of High Court under S.133 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is appellate in nature but as a third appellate forum, High Court cannot reappraise facts to second guess factual determinations rendered by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal even if it agrees with them

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final adjudicator of facts and unless misreading or non-reading of evidence results in its failure to determine a material issue of law that then comes to High Court for adjudication

High Court is loathed to engage in reappraisal of facts even for purposes of adjudicating a question of law.

Appellants/employees were civil servants covered by Civil Servants Act, 1973 and their invoking constitutional jurisdiction to seek adjudication of terms and conditions of their service were barred under Art.212 of the Constitution

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order and judgment passed by the single bench of High Court dismissing the constitutional petitions of the employees/appellants

Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance of petitioner was that police authorities were harassing her on the behest of her parents and other family members

Validity

Paramount consideration before Court had always been welfare and betterment of a minor

Courts always acted in loco parentis position while keeping in view a variety of considerations

Technicalities of law were not supposed to circumvent exercise of jurisdiction and powers by Courts in dealing with matters pertaining to minor/child

Courts were supposed to exercise their jurisdiction proactively to forestall any endeavor to cause a breach of fundamental rights of children, protection/provision of which essentially was also in welfare of minor/child

In view of Arts. 9, 14 & 35 of the Constitution, the State was to protect marriage, the family, the mother and the child, as the same was granted

High Court directed the authorities to remain within the four corners of law and restrained them from causing any harassment to petitioner in any manner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court can be exercised only when there are exceptional circumstances and the order impugned is perverse or suffering from any type of infirmity.

High Court in exercise of judicial review cannot ignore any illegal and unlawful exercise of jurisdiction by court merely for reason that such decree or order is not directly challenged through subject matter of judicial review in collateral proceedings

Failure to exercise judicial review when it was essentially required to rectify apparent jurisdictional defect in proceedings, would tantamount to aiding injustice, unfairness and to perpetuate retention of illegal gains. [Para. 21 of the judgment]

Petitioner was an employee of Federal Shariat Court who was removed from service as a result of departmental proceedings initiated against him

Petitioner invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to assail orders passed by Federal Shariat Court on administrative side

Validity

Expression 'Persona Designata' referred to capacity of a person outside realm of functions and powers relating to his or her office

Judge performing functions and exercising powers as a 'Judge' or 'member' of court did not act as 'Persona Designata'

Bar contained under Art. 199(5) of the Constitution extended to acts done and orders passed by a Judge of superior court as a 'member' of the court, which included administrative orders or decisions taken in exercise of powers conferred under Rules framed under Art. 208 of the Constitution

Orders passed by Federal Shariat Court were immune from being considered or adjudicated in terms of Art. 199(5) of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in matters in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court has no legal authority in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution to declare any post as permanent; as such it is defined job of the President of Pakistan under law

Even such kind of recommendation cannot be given by the High Court in any manner as it is the role of relevant Ministries and Divisions to perform such function as defined in the Rules of Business, 1973.

Under provisions of R.32(20 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules,1984, no doubt furnishing of certified copies was required but there existed exceptions to the said Rule, and when such documents were admitted by the other side then certified copies of documents were no longer required

Compliance to requirement of R. 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 must be determined at time of filing of writ petition before the same was admitted to hearing and once such petition was admitted and notices were issued then R.38 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 came into operation which empowered the High Court to pass any order it deemed fit or to follow any procedure that may before it appear to be just.

High Court, in exercise of advisory jurisdiction which was last fact finding forum had to decide reference application on facts and circumstances founded by Appellate Tribunal

High Court could not change finding of facts arrived at by Appellate Tribunal, therefore, High Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon proposed questions while exercising its advisory jurisdiction

High Court declined to answer questions proposed in reference application

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Practice of quashing the FIR by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, was not approved by Supreme Court.

Accused had objected that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present revision application as the jurisdiction actually rested with the Federal Shariat Court

Validity

Record showed that accused had been convicted by the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which had been maintained and upheld by the appellate court

Accused had filed the present revision application by impugning the judgments of two courts below under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979

Revision application under Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C. would be competent before the High Court in respect of any proceedings before any criminal court

High Court, while exercising such powers, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceedings of such criminal court, could call for record and examine the same

Revisional power did not lie with High Court in respect of Prohibition of (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979

Federal Shariat Court could call and examine the record of any case decided by any criminal court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order passed by such court and the revisional power of High Court in respect of Hudood matters, was excluded

Circumstances established that the present revision application before the High Court was incompetent

Revision was transferred to Federal Shariat Court, in the circumstances.

High Court, in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, had to decide a reference application on the facts and circumstances founded by the Appellate Tribunal, which was the last fact-finding forum

High Court, in its jurisdiction under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not change the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal.

Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of legislature and strike it down, except on two grounds, namely lack of legislative competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Question before the High Court was whether a Constitutional petition impugning actions of Provincial Environmental Protection Agency in pursuance of an Environment Protection Order; was maintainable in view of remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Ss. 22 & 23 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997

Held, that question raised in the Constitutional petition related to interpretation of S. 16 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 and powers of the Provincial Environmental Protection Agency versus power of the Environmental Tribunals to enforce the Environment Protection Order (EPO); and therefore the remedy of appeal under Ss. 22 & 23 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 was not efficacious

Constitutional petition was therefore, maintainable.

While exercising reference jurisdiction under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969, High Court has to examine and decide only such questions of law, which may arise from the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal and cannot decide questions of facts unless such findings on facts is found to be perverse or contrary to record, as Appellate Tribunal is final fact finding forum as provided under law.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of decision taken by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority with regard to fixation of tariff

Validity

Jurisdiction under S.12(2) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, is limited to the extent that High Court could only apply judicial view as to whether procedural requirement under Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, Rules and Licenses had been followed

High Court could not sit as Court of appeal and consider such details which Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority had undertaken

Price fixation mechanism was not a function which was to be undertaken by High Court

Where procedural requirements had been flouted, High Court could provide indulgence

Specialized performances which were assigned to regulatory authority could not be undertaken by High Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion

Judicial intervention in the matter was required only where person aggrieved i.e. the petitioner, could show that tariff fixation was a procedure bypassed, arbitrary and ultra vires; it could only then if statutory prescribed procedure was not followed, a tariff could be held ultra vires to be remanded back

High Court declined to interfere with statutory powers exercised by statutory authority while fixing tariff and reasons assigned to Annual Revenue Requirements and tariff

Petition dismissed in circumstances.

Once Trial Court had taken cognizance of the matter, High Court could not, as a rule, quash the FIR as the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies available to them before the Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Minor sons, whose custody was sought by petitioner mother, were suckling babies of about two years and fifteen days respectively

Such minors required protection and care for twenty four hours and nobody, other than real mother could look after them

High Court under S.491, Cr.P.C., was clothed with extraordinary powers to issue directives in the nature of habeas corpus

Where minors were of tender age, and had been snatched from lawful custody of their mother, though the remedy was available under S. 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 but provision of S. 491, Cr.P.C., provided efficacious speedy and appropriate remedy

Section 491, Cr.P.C. protected right of a person, who had been kept under illegal or improper custody

Attending circumstances had suggested that restoration of custody of minors under S. 491, Cr.P.C., in circumstances, was necessarily required but as an interim measure

Question of custody, could be decided by the Guardian Judge

High Court directed father of minors to hand over minors to their mother

Petition was allowed accordingly.

High Court in its jurisdiction under S.34, Federal Excise Act, 2005 is to only render legal opinion on questions of law and would not counter the same when there is nothing absurd or unreasonable in the finding so as to warrant a different opinion.

Civil servant could be transferred during period of service anywhere which would fall under terms and conditions of service

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.212 of the Constitution was explicitly barred

Present matter would come within the domain of Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution is not contingent upon residence of respondents; it requires that a person/authority/ functionary of State against whom Constitutional petition is sought to be issued should be operating or be amenable to jurisdiction of High Court

Elements embodied in S.20, C.P.C. cannot be introduced in Art.199 of the Constitution.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court Act (IX of 1993), S.3 [as amended by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court (Amendment) Ordinance (XVIII of 2014)]

Notification No.LD/AD-355-425/2015 dated 27.03.2015

Writ of quo-warranto

Maintainability

Power to promulgate Ordinance

Appointment of Judges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court

Constitutionality

Jurisdiction of High Court

Scope

Shariat Court/Judge not included under S.44(5) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Respondents raised the objection that their appointments as Judges of Shariat Court on recommendations of the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Chief Justice of Shariat Court, could not be challenged through writ petition in view of the bar contained under S.44(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Validity

Shariat Court was not included under S.44(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Said objection was against the principles of Jurisprudence that 'where there is a wrong there is a remedy'

High Court, observed that if appointment of a Judge of the High Court was challenged by way of a writ of quo-warranto, what was in fact under challenge was the appointment of the Judge which had been made not by the High Court or the Supreme Court but by the President

Appointment of a Judge of Shariat Court could, therefore, be questioned through a writ of quo-warranto.

Article 212 of the Constitution, barred the jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to terms and conditions of civil servants but out of turn promotion had no link with the terms and conditions of civil service

Out of turn promotion was not regular promotion but a tool of reward in case of exceptional circumstances

Out of turn promotion involved Fundamental Rights such as equality of citizens before law and entitlement to equal protection of law under Art.25 of the Constitution, High Court had jurisdiction in the matter

Any act or order which was contrary to the Constitution and law would not be sustainable simply because such act had attained finality and had become past and closed transaction

Out of turn promotion was against the Constitution and injunctions of Islam

Promotion of official for the purpose of encouraging performance should not negatively affect the rights of other similarly placed officials

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

High Court has to decide reference application on fact and circumstances founded by Appellate Tribunal, which is the last fact finding forum

High Court cannot change finding of facts arrived at by Appellate Tribunal

Opinion of High Court under S. 133 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is binding on it.

Scope.

Reference jurisdiction under S. 133(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was limited to the extent of examining questions of law which could arise from the order passed by Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for appointment of commission for verification of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Reference Court while exercising power under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been equated with an Executing Court and said court was not authorized to go behind the reference

Court hearing an appeal against the order of an Executing Court (Reference Court) could not go behind the decree (Reference) and enter into a dispute which should have been raised and decided before the final determination of compensation by the Collector

Application for appointment of local commission was dismissed in circumstances.

While exercising powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., the High Court must maintain great care and caution, so that it could not result into miscarriage of justice

Allegation of the complainant in the present case, in application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. before the Justice of Peace, per se, constituted a cognizable offence

Application, in circumstances, was rightly accepted by Justice of Peace through the impugned order for the registration of F.I.R.

Such order was unexceptionable, and warranted no interference by High Court in exercise of its inherent power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.

If a person was illegally removed from the settled area to the tribal territory by the political authorities, the High Court could entertain the matter, if the procedure as laid down in S. 86-A, Cr.P.C had not been fulfilled.

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of the person who came to Court with soiled hands in order to satisfy from greedy and covetous instincts

Concurrent findings recorded by two Courts of competent jurisdiction after due consideration of material on record, were not open to question in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed.