"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2017J7_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eOUSTER OF JURISDICTION OF\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eMuhammad Adil Hafeez\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eMuhammad Adil Hafeez\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2017-06-24T11:17:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2017-06-24T11:17:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e2236\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e12750\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e106\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e29\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e14957\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eOUSTER OF\r\nJURISDICTION OF\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCOURTS IN PAKISTAN\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMuhammad Usman Ramzan,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eDeputy Solicitor Punjab,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eJurisdiction is the basis of all the legal proceedings.\r\nThe term \u0027jurisdiction\u0027 refers to the legal authority to administer justice in\r\naccordance with the means provided by the law and subject to the limitations\r\nimposed by law. It is primarily related to the power of the court to hear,\r\ndetermine and adjudicate a cause by exercising its judicial power and\r\nauthority. The jurisdiction is so important that a court cannot proceed further\r\nin a matter unless it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. If a court\r\nwrongly assumes jurisdiction, then such proceedings are nullity in the eye of\r\nlaw. It is well known principle of law that the courts are established by law\r\nand the jurisdiction is also conferred on the courts by law. The establishment\r\nand jurisdiction of the courts is essential legislative function as enshrined\r\nin Article 175 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. A\r\ncourt can only be established by duly enacted law of the legislature rather\r\nthan by means of an executive order and same rule applies so far as conferring\r\nof jurisdiction on courts is concerned. The Article 175 of the Constitution\r\ndescribes that there shall be a Supreme Court of Pakistan, a High Court for\r\neach province and a High Court for Islamabad Capital Territory and such other\r\ncourts as may be established by law and no court shall have any jurisdiction\r\nsave as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any\r\nlaw. But, sometimes the jurisdiction of the courts is barred by law which is\r\ncommonly known as ouster of jurisdiction. Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure\r\n1908 states that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained)\r\nhave jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which\r\ntheir cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Similarly plaint can\r\nbe rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 1908 when the plaint is barred\r\nby any law. So the courts are bound by law not to proceed with the case where\r\ntheir jurisdiction is barred by law or their jurisdiction is ousted by law. But\r\nvarious questions arise in our minds e.g. either the ouster of jurisdiction of\r\nthe court is absolute or not? Can the courts interfere in matters despite the\r\nfact that there is express ouster of jurisdiction? What will be the legal status\r\nof the proceedings of the court when their jurisdiction is barred by law? Here,\r\nwe will try to explore the answers to the aforesaid questions.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eAs the jurisdiction is conferred on the courts by law, so\r\nthe jurisdiction of the courts is also barred by law. It may be express or\r\nimplied. Sometimes law expressly bars the jurisdiction of the courts, but on\r\nsome occasions, there is no express provision in law that bars the jurisdiction\r\nof the court but an inference may be drawn from a particular provision of law\r\nthat the jurisdiction is barred, it is called implied bar of jurisdiction. In\r\nour legal system, there are two kinds of ouster of jurisdiction; first one is\r\ncalled as \u003cb\u003eConstitutional Ouster of jurisdiction\u003c/b\u003e wherein the Constitution\r\nitself bars the jurisdiction of the courts and the second one is called as\r\nStatutory Ouster of jurisdiction wherein a particular provision of a statute\r\nbars the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of\r\nPakistan 1973 envisages some provisions that bar the jurisdiction of courts.\r\ne.g. Article 41(6) describes that the validity of the election of the President\r\nshall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority,\r\nArticle 69 narrates that the validity of any proceedings in [Majlis-e-Shoora\r\n(Parliament)] shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity\r\nof procedure. Article 203G bars the jurisdiction in the following words that\r\nSave as provided in Article 203F, no Court or Tribunal, including the Supreme\r\nCourt and a High Court, shall entertain any proceedings or exercise any power\r\nor jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the power or jurisdiction of\r\nthe Court [Federal Shariat court] , Article 211 describes that the proceedings\r\nbefore the Supreme Judicial Council, its report to the President and the\r\nremoval of a Judge under clause (6) of Article 209 shall not be called in\r\nquestion in any Court, Article 212 is that notwithstanding anything\r\nhereinbefore contained where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established\r\nunder clause (1), no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or\r\nentertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of\r\nsuch Administrative Court or Tribunal extends [and all proceedings in respect\r\nof any such matter which may be pending before such other Court immediately\r\nbefore the establishment of the Administrative Court or Tribunal [other than an\r\nappeal pending before the Supreme Court,] shall abate on such establishment:]\r\nof administrative courts and tribunals\u003csup\u003e`\u003c/sup\u003e Article 225 describes that\r\nno election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question in\r\ncourt except by an election petition presented to such tribunal and in such\r\nmanner as may be determined by Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), Article\r\n239(5) no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any\r\nCourt on any ground whatsoever etc.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eApart from the Constitution a particular provision of any\r\nstatute can also bar the jurisdiction of the court that is commonly known as \u003cb\u003eStatutory\r\nOuster of the Jurisdiction.\u003c/b\u003e e.g. Section 70A of Co-operative Societies Act\r\n1925 bars the jurisdiction of any court or authority whatsoever to try matters\r\nthat are exclusively within the domain of Cooperative departments, Section 172\r\nof Land Revenue Act 1967 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in the following\r\nwords that No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which\r\nGovernment, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer, is empowered by this\r\nAct to dispose of, or take cognizance of the manner in which Government, the\r\nBoard of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or\r\nhim by or under this Act and the said provision further enumerates the subjects\r\nin which the jurisdiction of civil court is barred, similarly section 67(2) of\r\nCanal and Drainage Act 1873 describes that a court shall not assume\r\njurisdiction in any matter in respect of anything done being done or purported\r\nto be done under sections 20, 20-A, 20-B, 20-C, 31, 32, 32-A, 33, 34, 35, 36\r\nand 45 of the Act and shall not pass any order interrupting any proceedings\r\nunder the Act, section 21(9) of Punjab Environment Protection Act 1997\r\ndescribes that no court other than an Environmental Tribunal shall have or\r\nexercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction\r\nof an Environmental Tribunal extends under this Act or the rules and\r\nregulations made there under, section 54A of Punjab Food Authority Act 2011\r\nbars jurisdiction of court in the following words; A Civil Court shall not\r\nentertain a suit or an application against any proceedings taken or order made\r\nunder this Act, section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act\r\n1912 describes that a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter of\r\nwhich the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take\r\ncognizance of the manner in which the [Provincial Government) [Board of\r\nRevenue] or Collector or any other Revenue Officer exercises any power vested\r\nin it or in him by or under the Act, section 16 of Service Tribunals Act 1973\r\nbars the jurisdiction of courts other than the tribunal to try matters that are\r\nthe exclusive domain of service tribunal. Notwithstanding the fact that every\r\nstatute contains the provisions pertaining to bar of jurisdiction of the court\r\nbecause such jurisdiction has to be exercised by another competent authority\r\ncreated by such statute.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eNow the question arises that \u003cb\u003eboth the Constitutional\r\nOuster of jurisdiction and Statutory Ouster of jurisdiction are absolute in\r\nnature or not?\u003c/b\u003e In other words what will be the effect of ouster of\r\njurisdiction on Supreme Court and High Courts and Courts subordinate to them?\r\nSo far as the effect of ouster of jurisdiction on Supreme Court and High Court\r\nis concerned, it has been held in number of cases that the constitutional\r\nouster of jurisdiction shall not affect the extraordinary jurisdiction of the\r\nSupreme Court and High Court, if the impugned act/order suffers from any of\r\nillegality i.e. without jurisdiction, coram non judice and mala fide. This\r\nprinciple was held in Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari v. Federation of\r\nPakistan, Pir Sabir Shah v. Federation of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi v. Election\r\nCommission of Pakistan, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoe v. ASJ, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar v.\r\nJustice Mukhtar Junajo, District Bar Association Rawalpindi v. Federation of\r\nPakistan etc. Similarly, statutory ouster of jurisdiction does not affect the\r\njurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court even in the circumstances when\r\nthere is an absolute bar of jurisdiction in statute. Whereas the constitutional\r\nas well as the statutory ouster clauses does apply on the subordinate Courts\r\nand their jurisdiction is absolutely barred. The proceedings carried out by a\r\nsubordinate court in the presence of ouster clause, such proceedings are\r\nconsidered nullity in the eye of law. This principle was held in Ahmad Mukhtar\r\nCheema v. Punjab Small Industries case, Muhammad Khursheed v. Superintendent\r\nEngineer Highway, Zeenat Manufacturing Ltd v. Secretary Survey and Rebate CBR,\r\nPakistan Islamabad etc.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eIt was held in Hakam v. Tassadaq Hussain Shah case that\r\nunder section 9 of C.P.C. 1908, Civil Courts are Courts of ultimate\r\njurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, excepting suits for which their\r\ncognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The Civil Courts are Courts\r\nof plenary and ultimate jurisdiction in dispute between parties pertaining to\r\ncivil nature and ouster of their jurisdiction is not to be lightly inferred or\r\nassumed as a matter of course. Only express provision in any law/statute can\r\ndebar and take away jurisdiction of Civil Court and such provision is to be\r\nstrictly construed and applied leaving no room for doubt that jurisdiction of\r\nCivil Court has been ousted. It was further held in the above said case that\r\nunder section 172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and section 25 of\r\nDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, expressly and unambiguously\r\ncommands that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred to take cognizance of\r\nmatters which under said special laws has been conferred upon special forums.\r\nThe West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, bars jurisdiction of\r\nCivil Courts and confers upon Rent Controller to decide matters referred to in\r\nlaw regarding landlord and tenant about properties falling within purview of the\r\nOrdinance, 1959. So it is clear enough that the civil courts cannot assume\r\njurisdiction in the cases wherein their jurisdiction is expressly and\r\nabsolutely barred.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eNow the very next question is that what will be the fate\r\nof the cases wherein the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred?\r\nFor application of rule of implied bar, it has to be seen that where a special\r\ntribunal or a public body is created by or under authority of an Act of\r\nLegislature for purpose of determining rights which is creation of Act, then\r\njurisdiction of that tribunal or of that body is exclusive and jurisdiction of\r\nCivil Court is barred. This principle was held in Khurshid Ahmad v. Rana Mumtaz\r\nAhmad Case. The court further elaborated that under section 8 of the Evacuee Trust\r\nProperties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, the Chairman Evacuee Trust\r\nProperty alone is competent to decide whenever any question arises as to\r\nwhether an evacuee property is attached to charitable, religious or educational\r\ntrust or institution or otherwise. Any proceeding in such regard before the\r\nCivil Court shall be coram non judice. On the same principle there is another\r\nsignificant case titled as Muhammad Afzal Warraich v. Muhammad Ramzan wherein\r\nthe impugn order of Session Judge was assailed before High Court through a\r\nConstitutional writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution 1973 stating\r\ntherein that Sessions Judge in his capacity as District Chairman of Human\r\nRights, directed police to register case against petitioners. It was held by the\r\ncourt that Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act. 1950, was a special enactment\r\nlegislated for resolution of such disputes and special law had overriding\r\neffect over general law. Sugarcane owners instead of following procedure laid\r\ndown in special enactment chose wrong forum for redressal of their grievance\r\nand Sessions Judge without - taking into consideration the ouster clause\r\nprovided in section 22(1) of Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950.\r\nConsequently, the High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set\r\naside the order passed by Sessions Judge and allowed the petition.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eSo the crux of above said entire discussion is that the\r\nconstitutional ouster of jurisdiction is designed to maintain balance between\r\nthe legislature, executive and the judiciary, so that each organ of the state\r\nmay not interfere in the ambit of other. On one hand, the superior courts can\r\nreview the legislative and executive actions, on the other hand the courts are\r\nsupposed not to interfere in the domain of other organs of the state. It is by\r\ndint of ouster of jurisdiction that the balance is maintained among three\r\norgans of the state namely legislature, executive and judiciary. Moreover the\r\nouster of jurisdiction avoids legal complexity. The precision of the authority\r\nenhances the proper administration of justice. e.g. a matter is pending in a\r\nservice tribunal and during the course of the proceedings, the same matter is\r\nbrought before another court and the matter is adjudicated by both of them. It\r\nwill create ambiguity and uncertainty. It is by dint of ouster of jurisdiction\r\nthat a same matter cannot be heard and adjudicated by more than one authority\r\nand decision of court of ultimate jurisdiction is binding on the parties. So,\r\nthe courts and the administrative authorities and tribunals have a line of\r\naction due to ouster of jurisdiction. The courts must adhere to the\r\nconstitutional and statutory ouster of the jurisdiction, in order to avoid\r\nlegal complexity. The High Court generally refuses to interfere in a matter\r\nwherein another efficacious departmental remedy is available. This practice\r\nought to be followed by the subordinate courts. The courts below must also\r\nrefuse to interfere in a matter that is exclusively within the domain of the\r\ndepartment and must direct the aggrieved person to avail departmental remedy\r\nfirst. Consequently, this practice will decrease the number of the cases\r\npending before the courts and that in turn, will provide an opportunity to the\r\npublic functionaries to exercise their qausi-judicial authority for proper\r\nadministration of justice.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"