Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 352 2015 SLD 352 2015 PLC 617
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 1975 of 2012 and 70 other petitionsdecided on 27th February, 2015
ATHAR MINALLAH, J
Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Muhammad Umair Baloch, Abdus Salam Qureshi, Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Sana Ullah Zahid, Ch. Tanweer Akhtar, Zill-E-Huma, Malik Umer, Syed Kazim, Muhammad Fareed Ch, Ch. Abdul Ghafoor Qamar, Farzana Sultana Baig, Ch

ABDUL QAYYUMvsCHAIRMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA), ISLAMABAD and another

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution is of extraordinary nature---Constitution has conferred power on High Court for enforcement of fundamental rights---Such power of High Court includes issuance of orders, directions or writs of five kinds, namely hebeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto---Constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary and extraordinary is exercised in grave cases rather than in routine---Despite expansive nature of powers and jurisdiction, it does not enable a High Court to act as an appellate forum---Various trappings or limitations are required to be satisfied before jurisdiction is to be assumed by High Court---Jurisdiction cannot be exercised to resolve disputed questions of fact, while policy matters and enforcement of contractual terms and rights are outside its scope. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Terms and conditions of service---Adequate remedy, non-availability of---Petitioners were employees of Capital Development Authority and with regard to matters pertaining to terms and conditions of their service, they did not have any remedy before any forum except to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Validity---Constitution unambiguously showed that State, its organs and functionaries, besides owning duty of care towards the employees had a constitutional obligation to provide them with independent and impartial exclusive forum for inexpensive and expeditious justice---Leaving an employee without an adequate remedy was a denial of justice and flagrant violation of constitutional commands imposing mandatory obligations---Petitioners and employees of several other State/government controlled corporations and organizations, no Tribunal or forum had been provided which could meet threshold of right of access to justice, nor was invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution an adequate and proper remedy for enforcement of their rights resting on terms and conditions of service---Individual grievances…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register