| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2899 2017 SLD 2899 = 2017 PLD 18 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2015, decision Date : 22-05-2017,hearing Date : 11-04-2017
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE, GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Raja Ikhlaq Hussain Kiani, Additional Advocate-General for Appellants.Miss Kokab Al Sabah Roohi for
Respondent No.1.
Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2015, decision Date : 22-05-2017,hearing Date : 11-04-2017
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE, GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Raja Ikhlaq Hussain Kiani, Additional Advocate-General for Appellants.Miss Kokab Al Sabah Roohi for
Respondent No.1.
AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANOTHERVSMUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN, PROJECT DIRECTOR & 3 OTHERS
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section: 44
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 37
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 44---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 37---Writ jurisdiction of High Court---Nature and Scope---Alternate remedy---Contractual matters---Questions of fact---Scope---No absolute bar existed for exercising writ jurisdiction regarding matters arising out of contracts or involving contractual liabilities or obligations---Contracts were also a creation of the law and were enforceable, and in some cases, violation of a condition of contract amounted to violation of law as envisaged under S.37 of the Contract Act, 1872---Extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon High Court was of paramount importance in system of administration of justice for redressal of grievance(s) if there was no other adequate remedy available under law---Determination of such adequacy of remedy depended on facts and nature of a case and High Court was the sole authority to decide whether in view of peculiar facts of a case, the exercise of writ jurisdiction was justified or not---Mere availability of alternate remedy should not be a hurdle in the exercise of power of judicial review under S.44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 when the matter was of an urgent nature---Aggrieved party if directed to seek redressal through an alternate remedy available under the law, and where the very remedy would get frustrated then it could be proper for the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction----Remedy of writ was not available against a private person and writ jurisdiction could only be exercised when the person against whom the same was sought was performing functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or a local authority---Even contractual rights and obligations may be enforced in situation where such rights were based on statutes or rules framed thereunder or when an obligation or duty was vested in a public functionary or a statutory body performing functions in connections with affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or local authority---Ordinarily exercise of writ jurisdiction in propositions requiring detailed inquiry or recording of evidence and intricate and complicated…