Alternate remedy

Ordinarily, availability of adequate and efficacious statutory remedy persuades High Court to decline exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution but such principle admits of recognized exceptions.

Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C submitted by the police, and the applicant, who was let-off during investigation, was joined and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued

Validity

Admittedly, the applicant was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the deceased

Besides, the offence with which the applicant had been charged was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and carried capital punishment, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance had submitted the case papers to the Court of Sessions as required by S.190(1), Cr.P.C which was the ultimate Court of trial, where it had been instituted

However, after assigning number to it, the case had been assigned to Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court)

Trial Court had also taken cognizance of the offence

Since the impugned order had been acted upon and had attained finality, hence it was not in existence or in the field

Application was not maintainable and had become infructuous

Conse-quently, the application was dismissed

After taking cognizance by the Trial Court, alternate remedy was made available for the applicant which could be availed if so advised.

Expression adequate remedy represents an efficacious, reachable, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy.

Petitioner / defendant was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court setting aside ex-parte decree on the condition of submitting bank guarantee and surety bond

Petitioner / defendant assailed order of Trial Court in Constitutional petition but High Court office raised objection against maintainability of petition to avail alternate remedy

Validity

Order in question was not made appealable either under S. 104, C.P.C. nor the order amounted to a case decided to be revisable

Provision of S.115, C.P.C. provided that where appeal was not maintainable, revision would lie against decision of the case

For revision to be maintainable, finality was to be attached to the order assailed and the same was missing

Neither appeal nor revision was maintainable against interlocutory order requiring petitioner / defendant to deposit bank guarantee and surety bond for suspension of ex parte decree

Constitutional petition could be filed due to non-availability of equally efficacious alternate remedy and objection raised to avail appropriate remedy was misconceived

Office objection was over ruled, in circumstances.

Reasonableness of Governments' conduct vis-à-vis enhancement of royalty was visible from minutes of meeting of Rate Fixation Committee which reflected that a rational process was adopted in considering subject of enhancement of royalty in as much as a comparative analysis was made between rates or royalty of various major minerals prevailing in Sindh Province as compared to other Provinces of the country, with it coming to the fore that the domestic rates of shale clay and limestone were significantly lower, albeit the quality of those minerals being either the same or of higher grade than what was found elsewhere, and the rates that were then proposed by way of enhancement were either commensurate to or even lower than the rates prevailing in the other Provinces

Cabinet was not misinformed, as alleged, and the discrepant noting pointed out by petitioners in minutes of the Cabinet meeting did not of itself make out a cogent case for the matter to be reconsidered

If enhancement of royalty brought about through Notification in question was so exorbitant as to threaten the very viability of cement industry, then such concern would fall within the parameters of R. 99 of Sindh Mining Concession Rules, 2002 and petitioners were to firstly make a representation to competent authority in that regard in terms thereof

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Public functionaries cannot be allowed to manipulate lawful process through deliberate illegal actions and strangulate the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under the garb of availability of alternate remedies and ultimately put victims of such illegal actions to face rigors of cumbersome legal process before various other forums

Illegal and unlawful acts of public functionaries cannot be allowed to perpetuate merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedies

Respondent/Incharge Police Station was aware that there was no order of attachment of property of appellant/accused under S. 88, Cr.P.C. and the property was not used in commission of offence

Respondent/ Incharge Police Station initially seized vehicles under S. 550, Cr.P.C. and later after realizing legal complications, managed to make vehicles as case property

Such action of respondent/Incharge Police Station was not backed by any valid reason

High Court declared that seizure of vehicles by respondent/Incharge Police Station was without lawful authority and the same was struck down

Division Bench of High Court directed respondent/Incharge Police Station to return vehicles to the premises from where they were seized and order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court was set aside

Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/accused sought quashing of FIR registered against him on the ground that the matter was of civil nature which could only be agitated and adjudicated by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction

Validity

Record showed that petitioner had previously challenged the same FIR by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court conferred under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and said petition was dismissed by the Court

Subsequently, PLA was also dismissed by the Supreme Court with the direction to the investigating agency to probe into the matter

Bare reading of S.561-A, Cr.P.C showed that High Court could not embark upon the investigation proceedings in order to annul the same, and such-like application asking for quashment of investigation proceedings per se was not maintainable

When police report under S.173, Cr.P.C, was submitted before the Court concerned, question of annulment/quashment of FIR becomes irrelevant and redundant for all its practical purpose, therefore, proper recourse and remedy available to an accused is to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court to get himself/herself exonerated under S.249-A, Cr.P.C or under S.265-K, Cr.P.C, as chapter of quashment of FIR stands closed after submission of police report under S.173, Cr.P.C

Petition was meritless, devoid of any force and not maintainable, which was dismissed accordingly.

Case of petitioner was that due to some construction work in the street, a driver of an unknown tractor hit the gas connection of the house of petitioner, due to which the gas meter was damaged

Petitioner informed the authorities of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited with regard to the incident, but the Company lodged a false FIR against him and also issued a claim letter directing the petitioner to pay certain amount being the value of gas consumed on account of direct use of gas

Petitioner deposited an installment of the amount and it was assured by the Company that if he got acquitted of the charge, the amount would be readjusted/returned to him

Petitioner, after his acquittal, approached the Company to return the amount but it refused to do the needful

Validity

Dispute between a consumer and a licensee of natural gas was to be governed under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016

Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, was comprehensive enough to regulate the matters connected with S. 6 of the Act

Said Act contained the procedure for filing of a complaint and the procedure to be adopted by the Gas Utility Court for redressal of the grievances on receiving of the complaint

Petitioner was required to set into motion the relevant provisions and to avail proper remedy, but he directly approached the High Court in constitutional petition, which was not permitted under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

High Court may, on the application of any aggrieved party, exercise its' constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, however, such exercise is subject to the Constitution, and if the Court is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law.

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the tariff, rates, charges and other terms and conditions for supply of electric power service by the Generation, Transmission and Distri-bution Companies

For determination of any tariff, NEPRA follows its notified guideline and other indexes as provided in the Power Purchase Agreement, etc

Indeed, determination of tariff or other charges requires elaborate discussion considering various legal and factual factors in view of approved guideline of the Federal Government as well as NEPRA

High Court being a constitutional court has neither such expertise nor can make a probe in this matter

Although the petitioner had challenged the tariff on various legal grounds, however, for effective determination of the issue, the appropriate forum was NEPRA which under Ss. 7(2)(g) & 3(1) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, had the authority to review its orders

High Court transmitted the petition to NEPRA for its decision after hearing the parties

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Case of petitioners was that their predecessor was allotted 3 shops by the Cantonment Executive Officer wherein they had started business and were paying huge monthly rent but due to the construction of wall by the respondents the passage/entry towards the shops has been closed as a result the business activities carried out in the shops had affected

Validity

Petitioners might have a genuine grievance but on no count same could be resolved through a writ petition as not only alternate remedy was available to them for redressal of their grievance but the forum existed too

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner was aggrieved of multiple acts done by different authorities and sought action against such authorities, against whom he had already initiated proceedings before other forums

Held, that contents of petition were based on jumbled and incoherent facts narrated in a confused manner, vague in details raising multifarious and indefinite grounds and allegations requiring roving inquiry in the affairs of various departments for fishing out some kind of a case with prayer, which itself was also multidimensional

Petitioner also had availed remedies before certain other forums, result of which was not disclosed

High Court declined to comment upon merits of the case, lest it might prejudice any other remedy available to petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Direct approach to the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction by an aggrieved person in ordinary circumstances is not valid.

Rule of exhaustion of alternate remedy is not an absolute one as there may be exceptional cases wherein a petitioner may be allowed to seek his/her remedy by way of judicial review in spite of the existence of an alternative remedy, but casual deviation from such general rule will burden the constitutional courts with such matters where grievance of petitioner can be well redressed by any alternate forum

Further, the strict compliance to such settled principle will also help to improve the working of other statutory machineries to handle such disputes instead of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of judicial review.

Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 does not confer any substantive right on any party but provides a person only an additional remedy under extraordinary jurisdiction.

Under common law, remedy of judicial review through writ jurisdiction is not available in the presence of adequate alternate remedy

Remedy by way of judicial review should be treated only as a remedy of last resort and should only be used in exceptional circumstances when other remedies, which would provide efficacious redressal, have been properly exhausted by a litigant.

Remedy of writ in its very nature is an extraordinary relief which is exercised in extraordinary circumstances with due care and caution; that too when violation of law or any statutory provision, fundamental right is oozing from the record which attracts the conscious of the Court qua indulgence.

Petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to stop unlawful activities of Quadianis in the State for preaching Ahmadism under the cover of word Muslims

Validity

Writ jurisdiction under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 could be exercised only if there was no alternate remedy available to the petitioners

Section 298-C, P.P.C., provided an alternate remedy to the petitioners

Section 298-C, P.P.C., provided that it was an offence to preach or propagate a faith by Quadianis group or Lahori group or by any other name and was punishable under the Penal Code

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Court in its inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., ordinarily does not interfere with the police investigation in a cognizable offence and more particularly when alternate course of action is available under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court, however, simultaneously it is the prime duty of the High Court to guard the citizen from any abuse of process of law.

Such jurisdiction had certain circumventions which the Court was required to keep in view while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction

Availability of alternate remedy was one of the limitations which barred exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Subsequently matter was laid down before Civil Court, which after interim order was challenged before Lower Appellate Court who struck down the injunction order so rendered by Civil Court

Such order of Lower Appellate Court led the path for authorities for withdrawal of Award Certificate with direction to leave premises and let petitioner to apply a fresh participant in fresh bidding process

Validity

Provisions of O.XXIII, R.1, C.P.C. excluded a person from instituting a fresh suit in respect of same subject matter

High Court declined to interfere in the matter by entertaining Constitutional petition when on the same point civil suit was pending

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Resort and recourse to writ jurisdiction can only be made if there is no other adequate remedy available to the petitioner.

Ejectment order being the "final order" within the contemplation of Ss.2(b) & 22(6) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was appealable under S.28 of the said Act; but the respondent opted not to file such an appeal

In view of available alternate remedy, Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Petitioner was father of minor son and there was dispute with respondent / mother of minor regarding his custody, issuance of passport and his removal from Pakistan

Validity

Presence of remedy available under law i.e. Family Courts Act, 1964, and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, did not mandate High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Family Court was fully empowered to issue direction if required to concerned authority for placing name of minor on Exit Control List

Custody of minor was to be regulated by Family Court in pending Guardians and Wards suit

Petitioner could file application to regulate the custody of minor before Family Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petition filed against order of revenue authorities was not maintainable before High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution as petitioners had remedy under revenue laws and it was for petitioners to take resort

Matter was pending before Supreme Court and at such stage no conclusive findings could be given by High Court on the issue involved in the matter

Petitioners had already sought declaration for their ownership over subject land which they failed to seek and their appeal too was dismissed, application of petitioner before revenue authority was also dismissed

Petitioners failed to resort appropriate remedy and exhaust remedy before Appellate forum under hierarchy of revenue authority or any Court of competent jurisdiction and had directly approached High Court

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petition was misconceived and petitioners should approach proper forum

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed in terms of O. VII R. 11(d) of the C.P.C., which had made the impugned order appealable in terms of S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the expression "decree" envisaged in S.2(2) of C.P.C. included rejection of the plaint

Order impugned, therefore, for all intents and purposes was appealable in terms of S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure

One of the material requirements for availing remedy under Art. 199 of the Constitution was when no other alternative, efficacious remedy was available

Constitutional petition in the present case was filed when not only adequate and efficacious but a statutory remedy was available

Trial Court, however, had not prepared the decree sheet

No person could be allowed to suffer or his right be prejudiced on account of an act of the court

Drawing up of a decree was the duty of the Trial Court and there was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribed a time for drawing a decree

Trial Court was directed to draw a decree in terms of the impugned order

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase customized car from appellant/company who failed to provide the same within due course of time

Trial Court and allowed interim relief to respondent/plaintiff

Plea raised by appellant/company was that where compensation and damages were sought in alternative, specific performance could not be ordered

Validity

Party claiming repudiation by counter party could not have its cake and eat it too

Appellant/company prima facie did not rescind the contract, which remained in field and had bound both parties i.e. appellant and respondent

Matter related to customized vehicle ordered by respondent/plaintiff and model of vehicle was not in production any more

No infirmity was noticed in order in question and Trial Court had rightly reasoned that respondent/plaintiff had made a prima facie case as vehicle was specially customized therefore, monetary compensation in lieu of it was not adequate compensation

Appellant/company was holding substantial amount of deposit from one customer, while refusing to refund it or process termination of the order in face of delays in delivery and then selling that vehicle to another customer at a much higher price and accepting his deposit as well, while dispute with first customer had already matured, such was not the kind of behaviour that seemed endearing from the perspective of equity

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court and imposed cost upon appellant/company

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Since the election process had started from notification calling the elections and would be complete on declaration of result; every matter arising during such period regarding elections amounted to election dispute

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Act, 2020, had provided a remedy to resolve such disputes by filing election petitions before competent forum

Any verdict of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction would affect the rights of the parties as well as of public at large

Points raised in the writ petitions were left open for the Election Tribunal

Writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Writ jurisdiction could not be exercised against a notice because the aggrieved person has an alternate and efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance i.e. to appear before investigating agency and present his view point.

Constitutional remedy is a summary remedy which is discretionary and disputed question of facts cannot be resolved under said jurisdiction

Such remedy is hedged and conditioned and it can only be availed as a last resort

Jumping over and keeping aside the bulk of alternate remedies imbalances the concept of trichotomy of powers as well.

High Court is blessed with powers under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, to redress the grievance of the petitioner who approaches the Court disclosing violation of law keeping in view the parameters of Art. 44 but simultaneously if an alternate forum for the purpose is available in normal course of law then exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is not desirable and proper.

Petitioner contended that the qualification of the private respondent/firm in all three items of the project was in violation of the terms/conditions of the bidding documents as per the Request for Proposal; that official respondents had given undue favour to the private respondent/firm; that subject project should be declared null/void; and that respondents/authorities were required to reject all the bids of private respondent

Deputy Advocate General being representative of official respondents contended that constitutional petition was pre-mature/not maintainable; that petitioner had failed to avail the alternate remedy under R.48 of the Procurement Rules; that respondent authority had permanent grievance committee; that petitioner participated in the bid process and remained unsuccessful for not having the technical and financial capacity to undertake the project; that considerable work of the project was complete and stopping the proceedings at such crucial stage would, cause public exchequer to suffer a loss of millions and private respondent/firm would also suffer financial loss and mental agony/torture; that matter involved disputed questions of facts which could not be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction; and that issue of fact whether petitioner had the required technical skills/know how could only be adjudicated by official respondents/authorities themselves

Held, that alternate remedy in shape of complaint was available to the aggrieved bidder and being dissatisfied with the decision of the committee might lodge an appeal in the relevant Court having jurisdiction

Petitioner's assertion and denial of respondents would lead to disputed question of facts which could not be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction

Alleged complaint to Chairman Grievance Committee was a request to the said Chairman seeking permission for submission of additional proposal/extension of proposal submission deadline and that too was incomplete

Petitioner's prayer was infected with the discrepancy that he was seeking for disqualification of private respondent from all three assignments whereas on the same breath seeking the declaration in his favour regarding only one of three assignments

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of appellants, inter alia, was that the validity of impugned order had been assailed before the various High Courts due to non-functioning of the Competition Appellate Tribunal and that the Competition Appellate Tribunal should await the decision of the High Court

Validity

Competition Appellate Tribunal was empowered to hear appeals against orders of the Competition Commission passed by two or more Members or by the Appellate Bench of the Competition Commission

In deciding such appeals, the Competition Appellate Tribunal was empowered to decide all questions of law and facts raised before it including the question of the composition of the Competition Commission

In case an Administrative Court or Tribunal was not available to a litigant for the reason that it is not functional then the litigant who had a remedy before such Administrative Court or Tribunal could not be left in a vacuum for an indefinite period due to the non-establishment of such Administrative Court or Tribunal or in other words a litigant could not be rendered remediless

In such circumstances, whilst acting upon the principle, "ubi jus ibi remedium", that is to say, where there is a right there is a remedy, and in the spirit of Arts. 4 & 10-A of the Constitution

Constitutional petition under Art. 199 was normally entertained by the High Court to provide relief to the litigant

However, once the Administrative Court or Tribunal became functional then under the relevant statute the remedy of litigant ordinarily laid before such Administrative Court or Tribunal established under the statute, inter alia, for the reason that, although the jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was open ended, yet it was subject to certain limitations mentioned in the said Article, one of which being the availability of other adequate remedy to the litigant

Request of the appellants to adjourn the appeals sine die was declined

Appeals were admitted to regular hearing.

High Court before exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction must be satisfied about the non-availability or inefficacy of alternate remedy provided under the law and once it is shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that alternate remedy is expedient and effective then High Court would be reluctant to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Constitutional jurisdiction can only be invoked as a last resort when all other remedies have already been exhausted or are not available.

In matters involving enforcement of Fundamental Rights, High Court may not insist on strict adherence to principle of alternate statutory remedy while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution.

Plea raised by authorities was that Constitutional petition was not maintainable against private person and alternate remedy was available to him

Validity

High Court was to protect Fundamental Rights provided and guaranteed under the Constitution

High Court was empowered under Art.199 (1)(c) of the Constitution to issue any appropriate direction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, conferred by the Constitution in its Chapter-1 of Part II, even to a private person

Matter in petition involved right to property which was a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art.23 of the Constitution, therefore, High Court was well within its powers to issue directions to even a private entity in its Constitutional jurisdiction dealing with the affairs of public

Dispute between Society and petitioner concerned business of Society because notice in question was not issued by the society while conducting its business

Petitioner was to approach Registrar Cooperatives because S.54 of Co-Operative Societies Act, 1925, had provided a mechanism to resolve dispute between a Cooperative Society and any of its members or past members

High Court directed the parties to appear before Registrar Cooperatives who would decide the issue after hearing all parties

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Pertinent issue was not simpliciter of availability of alternate remedy but assumption of jurisdiction when dispute squarely fell within the scope of an arbitral mechanism and per se had qualified as an arbitrable dispute

High Court declined to embark upon an exercise to adjudicate upon, determine and decide disputes by substituting dispute resolution mechanism

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

When revenue authority had already interpretated relevant provisions making statutory remedies illusory; and where petitioners sought interpretation of law requiring no factual determination, then Constitutional petition may be maintainable

Embargo on entertaining challenge to a show-cause notice was therefore qualified and a Constitutional petition may qualify as being within exception to said embargo / bar.

Jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution is not to be normally exercised where an alternate remedy is provided in law unless such remedy is illusory/inefficacious or the case is one where one otherwise amenable to issuance of a writ has acted in clear absence of authority/jurisdiction or indulged in an excessive exercise.

Article 199 of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that High Court may exercise its powers thereunder only "if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law"

If there is any other adequate remedy available to the aggrieved person, he must avail and exhaust such remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, whether such remedy suits him or not

'Doctrine of exhaustion of remedy' envisaged in Art.199 prevents unnecessary litigation before the High Court.

Availability of right to appeal/alternate remedy, where an order was passed wholly without authority and jurisdiction, in a perfunctory manner and in breach of principles of due process and procedural fairness, could not be bar to exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of Constitution.

When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the issuance of a writ.

When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the issuance of a writ.

When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the issuance of a writ.

Controversial questions were involved in the matter, which could not be resolved while exercising constitutional jurisdiction

Authenticity of documents produced by the petitioner could only be determined and established before Civil Court after opportunity of hearing to both the parties

Petitioner had alternate remedy and constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked in all matters as a matter of right rather such jurisdiction had certain circumventions

High Court would not indulge in investigation of disputed question of facts, which required evidence

Extraordinary jurisdiction was intended for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action could be established without any inquiry into complicated or disputed facts

Party invoking constitutional jurisdiction had to establish clear right which should be beyond any doubt and controversy

Legal right and entitlement of petitioner were controversial and such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, accordingly.

Petitioners were government contractors who were aggrieved of allocation of tender by the authority to contractor of his choice

Validity

Certain controversial questions were involved which could not be resolved while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Fate of Constitutional petition could not be decided on basis of such documents, authenticity whereof could only be determined and established before civil court as it required a full-fledged enquiry and scrutiny after providing full opportunity of hearing to both parties

In presence of alternate remedy Constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked in all matters as a matter of right

Such jurisdiction had certain circumventions which High Court was required to keep in view while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction

Availability of alternate remedy was one of the limitations which barred exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court

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

Controversial questions of facts adjudication on which was possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties could be determined only by courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter and on such ground Constitutional petition was not maintainable

While invoking Constitutional jurisdiction, it was mandatory for a party to establish clear legal right which could be beyond any doubt and controversy

High Court declined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction as in the light of alleged foul play, legal right and entitlement of petitioners were controversial and such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in Constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

When other remedy is available with the aggrieved person, the question to invoke the inherent power of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. does not arise.

Petitioner impugned order of Election Commission of respondent trade organization regarding nominations for election of officer-bearers of the Trade Organization

Validity

Section 21 of Trade Organizations Act, 2013 provided specific forum where appeal against such orders would lie and therefore Constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised where alternate remedy under the law is available to the petitioner.