Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98, 223(5)

Law: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)

Section: 11

  (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 98 & 223(5) ---Writ----Jurisdiction of High Court in relation to Tribal Areas ---Occurrence taking place in Tribal Area but order made or action taken in territories within jurisdiction of High Court-High Court competent to examine legality of order passed or action taken by authority within its jurisdiction-Frontier Crimes Regula tion (III of 1901), S. 11. Where the contention was that the High Court bad, in view of provision of Article 223(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962), no jurisdiction to examine the propriety or legality of a case where the occurrence or the subject-matter in dispute had taken place or situated in a Tribal Area. Held: Whenever any order is made or any action taken in territories within the jurisdiction of the High Court even if it is in relation to an occurrence having taken place in a tribal territory, the High Court would have jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction. The State v. Dosso and another P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 533; Piao Gul v. The State P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 307; Sar Khan v. The State P L D 1967 S C 149; Ihsanullah and others v. Commissioner, F. C. R., Peshawar and another 1968 S C M R 974; Jamil Ahmad and another v. The State and .5 others P L D 1969 S C 344 and The Superintendent, Land Customs, Torkham (Khyber Agency) v. Zewar Khan and 2 others P L D 1969 S C 485 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98---Other alterna tive remedy open----Alternative remedy to be considered with reference to circumstances of each case---Alternative remedy per se no bar to issuance of order under Art. 98-Writ petition pending for about S years and objection as to alternative remedy raised for first time during arguments---Plea of alternative remedy not entertained---Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), S. 11. There is no dispute regarding the legal position that if an alternative adequate remedy, which is equally speedy, conve nient, less expensive and efficacious, is available to the petitioners, then the High Court will refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. But the alternative…