Conduct of petitioner

2026 CLD 310 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Conduct of petitioner

Petitioner for claiming the equitable relief under Constitutional jurisdiction has to do equity and must appear before the Court with clean hands.

2026 PLD 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Conduct of petitioner

Petitioner for claiming the equitable relief under Constitutional jurisdiction has to do equity and must appear before the Court with clean hands.

2025 PLD 382 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.17

Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014, Sched., Table-III, Clause II

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional petition

Quo warranto, writ of

Scope

Conduct of petitioner

Concealing of facts

Petitioner assailed selection of respondents on the posts in question on the plea that the same were illegal and made against the Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014

Validity

Writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course

It is in the discretion of Court to refuse or grant it according to facts and circumstances of the case

Foremost obligation of Court while hearing a quo warranto petition is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relater and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to allow the same

Court must be satisfied that petitioner is a bona fide and not motivated by any malice against the person whose appointment is under challenge

Writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice and mala fide

Court has to see whether attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object

At the first instance it has to be determined whether conduct of petitioner went to such an extent that High Court should, in view of such conduct consider him to be worthy of being entrusted with a writ in the form of quo warranto

Petitioner after his non-selection by authorities filed successive petitions, and concealed facts regarding filing of earlier petitions and dismissal of one of them

Petitioner also challenged appointments of some of the respondents in earlier petition and did not realize that the order of dismissal of earlier petition had attained finality

Petitioner relied upon unauthentic documents to question appointments of respondents

Conduct of petitioner held him disentitled for the relief sought and instead deserved imposition of cost as he had filed successive petitions

High Court declined to interfere in appointments of respondents and imposed costs upon the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2025 PLC(CS) 1510 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.17

Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014, Sched., Table-III, Clause II

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional petition

Quo warranto, writ of

Scope

Conduct of petitioner

Concealing of facts

Petitioner assailed selection of respondents on the posts in question on the plea that the same were illegal and made against the Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014

Validity

Writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course

It is in the discretion of Court to refuse or grant it according to facts and circumstances of the case

Foremost obligation of Court while hearing a quo warranto petition is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relater and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to allow the same

Court must be satisfied that petitioner is a bona fide and not motivated by any malice against the person whose appointment is under challenge

Writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice and mala fide

Court has to see whether attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object

At the first instance it has to be determined whether conduct of petitioner went to such an extent that High Court should, in view of such conduct consider him to be worthy of being entrusted with a writ in the form of quo warranto

Petitioner after his non-selection by authorities filed successive petitions, and concealed facts regarding filing of earlier petitions and dismissal of one of them

Petitioner also challenged appointments of some of the respondents in earlier petition and did not realize that the order of dismissal of earlier petition had attained finality

Petitioner relied upon unauthentic documents to question appointments of respondents

Conduct of petitioner held him disentitled for the relief sought and instead deserved imposition of cost as he had filed successive petitions

High Court declined to interfere in appointments of respondents and imposed costs upon the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLC(CS)N 8 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionQuo warranto, writ ofConduct of petitionerContract service of petitioner for a specific project was terminated by respondent

Petitioner assailed order of termination of his contract and had also sought issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent for holding post of Vice Chancellor

Validity

Personal vengeance/grudge of petitioner against respondent could not be ruled out particularly when respondent had issued office order terminating services of petitioner

Matter was outcome of malice and ill-will on the part of petitioner

Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be resorted to settle personal grudges/differences between parties

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petition was not maintainable

High Court could not ascribe to itself role of Selection/Appointing Authority in service matters

Responsibility of deciding suitability of appointment, posting or transfer was the exclusive domain of Executive Branches of State

Court of Constitutional Causes should ordinarily refrain itself from interfering in policy making domain of the Executive

Order in question did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLC(CS)N 8 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199 (1)(b)(ii)Quo warranto, writ ofIssuancePrincipleConduct of petitionerApplicability

Writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course rather it is Court's discretion whether to refuse or grant it keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case

Exercise of writ jurisdiction of High Court has to be based on sound discretion and on consideration of recognized judicial jurisprudence governing exercise of such discretion

High Court cannot refuse to take a petitioner's conduct into account in the writ of quo warranto which disentitles him / her from such relief

High Court must, while hearing a petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto, inquire into the conduct and motive of relator

When High Court is not satisfied as to conduct of petitioner/relator, it may, in its discretion, refuse to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to do so.

2022 PLC(CS) 975 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Art.44Writ petitionMaintainabilityAppointment to advertised postEstoppel and acquiescenceConduct of petitionerScopePetitioner assailed appointment of respondents and sought direction to the department for his appointmentValidity

Petitioner had applied against the posts in question and his name was included in the short listed candidates, thereafter he had participated in the selection process actively but had failed to secure appointment

Petitioner, as per department, had also tendered fake certificate of his experience

While exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the conduct of the petitioner was also to be filtered through the lens of bona fide, which was to be judged by the court in the light of his conduct and overall circumstances of the case

Doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel were fully attracted in the matter

Court could not substitute the findings of the selection authority (based upon wisdom) without indication of any arbitrariness and illegality

Petitioner had failed to make out any point for interference by High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC(CS) 1394 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionDiscretionary jurisdictionConduct of petitionerScope

High Court's power under Art. 199 of the Constitution to grant relief to a petitioner by issuance or directions, orders or writs is purely discretionary

Such power can be exercised to grant relief only to a person whose conduct does not disentitle him to obtain such relief

Exercise of writ jurisdiction has to be founded on sound discretion and on consideration of recognized judicial principles governing exercise of such discretion

High Court cannot refuse to take into consideration a petitioner's conduct which disentitles him from such relief.

2021 PLC(CS) 1394 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionQuo warranto, writ ofDiscretionary jurisdictionConduct of petitionerScopeWrit of quo warranto cannot be issued as a matter of course

Issuance of the writ is in the discretion of Court to refuse or grant it according to the facts and circumstances of the case

Foremost obligation of the Court while hearing a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relator and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to do so.

2021 PLC(CS) 140 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionQuo warranto, writ ofConduct of petitionerEffect

Granting relief in the nature of quo warranto is within the discretionary power of the superior Courts and this relief cannot be allowed as a matter of course, rather the conduct and the bona fides of the petitioner, the cause and the object of filing such petition are also of considerable importance, which are to be examined

If the petition has been filed with some mala fide intent or ulterior motive and to serve the purpose of someone else, the remedy of quo warranto cannot be allowed to be a tool in the hands of the petitioner, who approached High Court with mala fide intentions and either had his own personal grudge and score to settle with the holder of a public office or is a proxy for someone else, who had a similar object or motive

Remedy of quo warranto should not be allowed to be used as a pressure tactic for purposes of restraining the respondent from performing functions and discharging their duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law

Relief of quo warranto should not be allowed as matter of course, more so when the candidature of a candidate was duly scrutinized at the time of the scrutiny of his appointment to ascertain whether he was qualified or disqualified in terms of the Constitution and the law

Court is not required to go into the merits of the case and should summarily dismiss the petition on the basis of lack of bona fides and extraneous motives of the petitioner and on account of the petition being frivolous.

2021 PLC(CS) 140 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionQuo warranto, writ ofPublic office holderConduct of petitionerLachesScope

Petitioner called in question the appointment of respondent as General Manager by (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) [PEMRA]

Validity

Chairman and the Members of PEMRA were public office holders for the purposes of Art. 199 of the Constitution but not every officer performing minute functions could be regarded as a public office holder

Post of General Manager was a senior position but it was not appointed by Federal Government

Basic purpose of filing the constitutional petition seemed to be the issuance of show cause notice to the General Manager (Operations)

Petitioner had not challenged the appointment of similarly placed person, who was appointed with the respondent, which showed his mala fide and personal grudge

Petition was hit by laches being filed after a lapse of 04 years of the appointment

Respondent was appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Board

Service regulations of PEMRA were non-statutory and its employees were not public servants

Petitioner had also failed to explain as to how he was able to lay his hands on the confidential/important documents of the department which was annexed with the petition

Petition was dismissed.

2015 PLC(CS) 37 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 184(3) & 199(1)(b)(ii)Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court/High CourtQuo warranto, writ ofMaintainabilityContents of petitionConduct of petitionerIn writ petitions in the nature of quo warranto, the message was more important than the messenger

Contents of such petitions generally override concerns arising on account of the conduct or antecedents of a petitioner.

2014 PLD 123 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 184(3) & 199(1)(b)(ii)Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court/High CourtQuo warranto, writ ofMaintainabilityContents of petitionConduct of petitionerIn writ petitions in the nature of quo warranto, the message was more important than the messenger

Contents of such petitions generally override concerns arising on account of the conduct or antecedents of a petitioner.