| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 680 1999 SLD 680 1999 SCMR 1881 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2138-L of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1999. (On appeal from the judgment, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-10-1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 16468 of 1995).hearing DATE : 16-04-1999.
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent
Civil Petition No.2138-L of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1999. (On appeal from the judgment, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-10-1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 16468 of 1995).hearing DATE : 16-04-1999.
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent
KHALID MEHMOOD
VS
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE,
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 156
(a.) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court --- Exercise of such jurisdiction in cases of adequate alternate remedy being available statutory bar of jurisdiction and in cases where High Court itself or Supreme Court was the repository of ultimate appellate, revisional or referable powers conferred by relevant statute --- Scope and extent --- Principles. As to bar of jurisdiction, it is to be noted that Article 199 of the Constitution opens with word to the effect that the Hig4 Court may exercise its powers under such Article only "if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law". Adequacy of the alternative remedy, therefore, if there is another remedy available, should always attract the attention of the High Court. Of such alternative remedies also there are some, which would still leave the jurisdiction of the High Court virtually unaffected, if the order, complained of, is so patently illegal, void or wanting in jurisdiction that any further recourse to or prolongation of the alternative remedy may only be counter productive and, by invocation of Article 199 the mischief can forthwith be nipped in the bud. In such matters, of course, neither the alternative remedy would be adequate nor bar of jurisdiction in the Sub-Constitutional Legislation may come in the way of the High Court in exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction. There are other matters, however, where the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be so readily resorted to. One such, falling in this category, would be matters amenable to the jurisdiction of an exclusive Tribunal, mandated by the Constitution itself. Another, which readily comes to the mind, would be disputes under a statute, postulating the appellate or revisional jurisdiction to reside either in the High Court itself or directly in the Supreme Court. An example, essentially relevant to the first, would be the Service Tribunal where the Tribunal is mandated by the Constitution of Pakistan namely, Article 212, thereof and where an appeal lies directly from the Tribunal's decision to the Supreme Court. Obviously, the High Court should be very slow inβ¦
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