Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Petitioner / civil servant assailed judgment passed by Provincial Service Tribunal before High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that under proviso to Art. 212(2) of the Constitution, direct appeal to Supreme Court could only be made when the Parliament had extended provisions of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution to such Court or Tribunal established under an Act of Provincial Assembly

Validity

Any Administrative Court or Tribunal established under an Act of a Provincial Assembly had come under the purview of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution when Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) had given its approval and enacted necessary legislation for extension of provisions of Art.212(2) of the Constitution to such Court or Tribunal and that too on the request / resolution of Provincial Assembly

If both the stages had surpassed, the proviso to Art. 212(2) of the Constitution would become applicable and its effect was the same as that of Federal Legislation, so all judicial remedies were closed and the only avenue left open for redressal was an appeal to Supreme Court in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 were not applicable to the matters governed by any Special or Local Law unless specifically provided in the said laws wholly or to any extent

Person who was proceeded against under a special law (Pakistan Army Act, 1952), he would be dealt with according to the procedure of enquiry/investigation and trial as laid down in the said special law

Provisions of Cr.P.C., therefore, would not be attracted to a case involving an offence dealt with by the Field General Court Martial under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952

Accused persons, in the present case, were dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952

Provisions of S. 143 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 provided that it was the Federal Government or the Chief of Army Staff or any officer not below the rank of Brigadier empowered in such behalf by the Chief of Army Staff who was empowered to grant pardons, remissions and suspensions

Since provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 were special law, the Supreme Court could not assume jurisdiction in the matter of compromise between the accused persons and legal heirs of the deceased

Review petition along with application was dismissed accordingly.

Supreme Court could issue directions to the legislature to legislate on a particular subject. [Minority view].

Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a case if it fell within the ambit of inquisitorial proceedings.

Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a case if it fell within the ambit of inquisitorial proceedings.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary in character/nature.

Supreme Court, while exercising power under Art. 185 (3) of the Constitution, does not interfere in findings of fact recorded by High Court

Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court is always discretionary in character.

Pre-emption suits, initially, were filed before Civil Court, which were decreed to favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners in equal shares

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners filed suits on the basis of occupancy tenant, therefore, cases were remanded by Lower Appellate Court by setting aside judgment and decree passed by Civil Court with direction to transfer the same to revenue authorities

Litigation remained pending adjudication before different forums since 1974

Effect

Substantial justice had been done, therefore, Supreme Court declined to interfere in the conclusions arrived at by High Court

Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of either of the parties

Leave to appeal was refused.

Civil servant absented himself from the office and did not join in spite of best efforts of department, due to which he was removed from service

Order passed by competent authority was upheld by appellate authority while dismissing his appeal, which was also affirmed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Findings were recorded by three authorities after analyzing evidence on record

Supreme Court did not find any infirmity or illegality committed by all forums while rendering findings of fact recorded against civil servant

Findings of fact recorded by authorities below could not be interfered by Supreme Court while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution

Civil servant failed to raise any question of law as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution

Leave to appeal was refused.

As ultimate Court in the land, Supreme Court, as a rule, should give due weight and consideration to opinion of courts below and in particular to opinion of court of first instance' which had the advantage of hearing the parties, witnesses and watching their demeanour

Generally, Supreme Court does not interfere with findings of fact recorded by primary courts or a High Court when it is satisfied that findings of courts below are on the whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence

Jurisdiction is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below while exercising power under Art.185(3) of the Constitution

Such jurisdiction is always discretionary in character and he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

Generally Supreme Court would not interfere in such findings.

Supreme Court, while exercising power under Art.212(3) of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own finding in place of finding of Service Tribunal.

Supreme Court, while exercising power under Art. 212 (3) of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own finding in place of finding of Service Tribunal.

Supreme Court normally does not interfere in concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below, in exercise of power under Art.185 (3) of the Constitution.

Suit filed by wife and minor children was decreed in their favour and appeal filed by husband was partly allowed by Lower Appellate Court and monthly maintenance allowance of minors was reduced

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Petition under Art.199 of the Constitution was not maintainable against concurrent findings of Tribunals below

Both the Courts below had given findings of fact against husband, therefore, High Court was justified to dismiss constitutional petition and the same was in accordance with law laid down by Supreme Court

Normally Supreme Court did not meddle with findings of fact reached at by primary Courts or High Court when it was satisfied that findings of Courts below were reasonable and were not arrived at by disregarding any of the provisions of law or any accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence, notwithstanding that a different view might also was possible

High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction had rightly refused to interfere with findings of fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction

Supreme Court did not find any infirmity or illegality or any misreading of evidence on record by the Courts below

Leave to appeal was refused.

Not an Administrative Court or Tribunal-Appeals to Supreme Court under Art. 212 (3) of Constitution, held, can only be filed in respect of orders passed in connection with matters specified in Art. 212 and in no other matters.-[Jurisdiction].