Availability

Any direction, determination in pursuance to some proceedings like proceedings of District Assessment Committee, resulting into finalization of assessment of rent could be termed as an 'order' contemplated in S.301 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2019

Rent agreements executed inter se parties contained arbitration clause and had provided a mechanism for resolution of disputes inter se parties

Appellants did not invoke arbitration clause and instead filed Constitutional petition but they had opted to invoke the same that should be proceeded as per mandate of Arbitration Act, 1940 which had provided remedy of appeal in terms of S. 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Division Bench of High Court in view of provisions of S. 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940 declined to interfere in the matter as appellants, under provisions of S. 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 were precluded to file Intra court appeal

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Land in question had already been attached with Research based agriculture department and was never available for reallocation or reconsideration under Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912

Land was reserved for agriculture department and revenue entry was made in revenue record as 'Government Seed Farm: in year 1904, i.e. more than 116 years ago

Revenue entry was much before the promulgation of Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912, itself

Wisdom of authority who kept the land for research worked at the relevant time (1904) had far reaching effects and the country was being benefited by some of the wise decisions of the past

High Court directed the authorities to restore land in question to its original status as a research based agriculture land attached with agriculture department

High Court further directed to restore entry in revenue record as 'Government Seed Farm' and any subsequent entry was to be deleted

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Cardiac reports were self-explanatory and did not qualify accused for grant of bail on medical grounds as they clearly opined that accused could be treated in jail hospital or no hospitalization was required

Bail on medical grounds was not available to petitioner in respect of his cardiac problems

Bail on medical grounds could only be granted in cases relating to mental health issues in exceptional cases and under exceptional circumstances

Medical reports and particular ailments suffered by accused were common to most of prisoners as he had no previous history of mental illness

Illness of accused could be managed and treated in jail hospital with necessary medication as opined in psychiatric medical report

Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Under Art.199(1) of Constitution, exercise of constitutional jurisdiction was subject to condition that petitioner should have no other adequate remedy provided under law

Petitioner had alternate remedy by way of approaching trial court for redressal of his grievance, as challan had already been submitted before trial court.

Availability of alternate remedy does not bar constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in every case.