| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 436 1960 SLD 436 1960 PLD 382 |
Dacca High Court
Writ Petition No. 91 of 1959, decision dated: 04-01-1960. Dates of hearing: 14 and 15-12-1959.
AKBAR, JUSTICE
T. Talukdar and M. A. Rab for Petitioner. B. A. Siddiky, Advocate General and K. M. Subhan for
Respondents 2 3.
Writ Petition No. 91 of 1959, decision dated: 04-01-1960. Dates of hearing: 14 and 15-12-1959.
AKBAR, JUSTICE
T. Talukdar and M. A. Rab for Petitioner. B. A. Siddiky, Advocate General and K. M. Subhan for
Respondents 2 3.
MRS. M. ALI KHAN
VS
THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Writ Mandamus Extraordinary remedy Issued in case of violation of, or threat to, legal right when other remedy is not prompt adequate and efficacious or resort to it would lead to "incalculable loss or harassment" Equitable considerations irrelevant Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Although the powers of the Court to issue writs are very wide, the remedy provided must remain an extraordinary remedy to be used where ordinary legal process cannot give adequate relief. The essential requirements in all such cases are : (1) that the petitioner has some legal right, (2) that the said right has been actually violated or there is an, imminent threat to that right, and (3) that the petitioner has either no other remedy available to him, or if there is such a remedy that remedy would not be equally prompt, adequate and efficacious, and in case he is left to that remedy he is likely to suffer incalculable loss and harassment. The remedy to which a citizen is entitled depends upon the facts of each case, and the legal status of the parties, their respective legal right and the nature of invasion of that right. Equity has nothing to do in a writ of mandamus and in considering that writ no equitable right or principle arises. A writ of mandamus is reserved for extraordinary emergencies being in the nature of supplementary means of obtaining substantial justice where there is clear legal right and no other adequate legal remedies. Mandamus will not be granted when the right is doubtful. Where the petitioner's plea was that she was the owner, by exchange of the house in dispute, and that the order of the Additional District Magistrate declaring the house to be still under requisition after the same had been de requisitioned by the District Magistrate, was ultra vires, but where the exchange was not evidenced by any registered document Held, that it was not a case to be satisfactorily agitated upon summary proceedings by way of a writ. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AKBAR, J. In this case the petitioner, Mrs. .M. Ali Khan, has obtained a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing them to cancel orβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492