| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3021 = 1980 CLC 99 |
Azad J. & K
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 28 of 1978, decided on 28th November, 1978. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 8-6-1977 in Writ Petition No. 38 of 1976).
Presented By: Chaudhury Rahim Dad Khan, C. J. and Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, J
Muhammad Sharif Tariq for Petitioner. Muhammad Yunis Surakhvi for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 28 of 1978, decided on 28th November, 1978. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 8-6-1977 in Writ Petition No. 38 of 1976).
Presented By: Chaudhury Rahim Dad Khan, C. J. and Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, J
Muhammad Sharif Tariq for Petitioner. Muhammad Yunis Surakhvi for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Petitioner
VERSUS
AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND 3 OTHERS Respondents
Law: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974
Section: 44
(a) Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 Art. 44-Writ petition-Limitation-Law prescribes no period of limitation for seeking relief under Art. 44-However, party seeking speedy relief must show due diligence in asking same Delay of sixteen months in moving petition without reaonable explanation-Held, could disentitle petitioner to obtain discre tionary relief.-[Limitation]. (b) Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 Art. 44 read with New Mirpur Town (Allotment of Land) Act, 1964-Writ jurisdiction of High Court-Person seeking remedy must come with clean hands-High Court would not grant relief to person whose claim of supposed vested right is based on posses sion obtained by encroachment-Courts of law meant to administer justice and not to perpetuate an inequity. It is well-settled law that a person seeking remedy from Court of law must come with clean hands, the High Court would not grant relief, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to such person whose claim of a supposed vested right is based on a possession obtained by encroachment because his past record in the transaction is not clean and above board. An order of allotment in favour of affected person being in accordance with the equities of the case could not be quashed by issuance of a writ. The Courts of law are meant to administer justice and provide remedy to an aggrieved person and not to perpetuate an inequity. Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sargadha-Bhera Bus Service P L.D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437 ref. (c) Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 Art. 44-Writ-Remedy by way of appeal against impugned order available-Petitioner cannot, after undue delay, invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court unless authority passing impugned order shown to have no jurisdiction or to have acted in excess of jurisdiction.-[Delay-Jurisdiction]. Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437 ref. (d) Appeal to Supreme Court- Objection regarding jurisdiction not raised either before Authority or High Court-Held, cannot be raised before Supreme Court for first time.-[Jurisdiction]. Majid Ali Naqvi v. Additional…