Writ

  1. Necessary party — No act of a party specifically challenged — not a necessary party in the proceedings. Ch. Muhammad  v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (B)
  2. Jurisdiction — If delay is condoned by the relevant Tribunal — Cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. Bashir Ahmad v. Custodian 1992 SCR 149 (B)
  3. Writ Jurisdiction cannot be exercised to protect an ill gotten gain by a person — Party must come with clean hands. Bashir Ahmad v. Custodian 1992 SCR 149 (C)
  4. Necessary party — No order without hearing government functionary can be passed — If a necessary party is absent there can be no adjudication. Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian 1992 SCR 214 (D&E)
  5. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct a person or authority to give effect to an unlawful order of any competent authority — Order of the Prime Minister for the appointment of Superintendent of Police of an Army Retired Officer violative of rules — Not enforceable by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Muhammad Aftab Ahmad v. Azad Govt 1992 SCR 307 (C)
  6. Army Officer — Regular induction in civil service of AJ&K — Required to be done by Selection Board — Order of Prime Minister for such appointment without recommendation of Selection Board — Not valid — Writ could not be issued. M. Aftab Ahmad v. Azad Govt 1992 SCR 307 (D)
  7. Only a person, aggieved by an Order of a person performing functions in connection with affairs of the State or local authority, can file a writ before the High Court. Mir Haider Shah v. Azad Government 1992 SCR 320 (B)
  8. igh Court empowered to consider the legality of an order in writ jurisdiction — Question of amendment — Case not remanded back out considered by the Supreme Court. Feroze Khan Sadiq v. Asghar Khan 1992 SCR 363 (C)
  9. Agreement of milling wheat — Handling charges refused to be paid — High Court accepted writ petition —- Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for enforcement of contractual liability. Azad Govt. v. Neelum Flour Mills 1992 SCR 381 (A)
  10. There is no law which provides for payment of handling charges — Held: S.44 of AJ&K Interim Constitution Act 1974 clearly indicates that writ jurisdiction is exercisable only if petitioner before High Court bases, his grievance which is based on violation of law and thus any grievance which is based on violation of a contract is clearly excluded — Appeal accepted. Azad Govt. v. Neelum Flour Mills 1992 SCR 381 (B
  11. A person seeking relief by way of writ must come with clean hands. If it is found that the petitioner has no legal or moral case then irrespective of the fact that the authority is bound to obey the orders of the Prime Minister the High Court may refuse to issue a writ of mandamus. Abid Hussain Jafri v. Azad Govt. and others 1993 SCR 105 (C)
  12. A person who seeks the remedy be invoking the writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. Bashir Ahmed v. Additional Custodian 1993 SCR 160 (A)
  13. Aggrieved party — No averment made or any other material placed in writ petition before the High Court to show any grievance — Writ petition rightly rejected by the High Court as the petitioner failed to show that he was an aggrieved party. M. Razaq v. Alam Din & others 1993 SCR 61 (A)
  14. It is not necessary that the petitioner seeking remedy by way of a writ must posses a juristic right so as to be an aggrieved party. It is sufficient if he shows that he has some tangible interest in the matter. Muhammad Aslam v. Abdul Rashid 1993 SCR 37 (A)
  15. Alternate remedy is relevant only in relation to the date of institution of a writ petition and not if the remedy is provided during the pendency of such a writ petition, especially so when the relevant notification makes no reference to the matters which are already subjudice in the superior courts. Thus irrespective of the question whether the Revising Authority has been legally constituted or not – Writ petitions pending in the High Court should have been decided on merits. Liaqat Ali v. Chairman Municipal Committee 1993 SCR 96 (B)
  16. A writ petition lies against a public functionary and not against a private person – Writ filed against private person no effective order could be passed against Rehabilitation Commissioner. Writ petition rightly dismissed. Muhammad Razaq v. Alam Din & others 1993 SCR 61 (B)
  17. Direct interference of the High Court or the Supreme Court where the concerned authority is acting without lawful authority will not be grounded — So much on the finding that proceedings were without jurisdiction but more firmly that the departmental remedies had been rendered inadequate. Abdul Rehman & another v. Income Tax Officer Mirpur & others 1993 SCR 186 (B)
  18. If a remedy is provided after the institution of a writ the person who is the petitioner has the option to withdraw the writ in hope that he might be able to get the relief through the newly provided remedy. Since no such situation existed in the present case the High Court fell in error in refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by the constitution. Liaqat Ali v. Chairman Municipal Committee 1993 SCR 96 (C)
  19. It is settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a party who does not come with clean hands and seeks to perpetuate an order which is patently violative of law. Saif Ali v.   Custodian 1993 SCR 39 (B)
  20. Jurisdiction — While hearing a case of writ jurisdiction High Court does not have jurisdiction to record a verdict about the genuineness of the allotment chit. High court in execise of constitutional jurisdiction can set aside a finding of fact based on no evidence or when it is bases on erroneous deduction from facts — but its jurisdiction in respect of question of facts cannot extend to recording of findings that a certain document is fabricated or suspicious. Abdul Qayyum v. Farzand Ali & others 1993 SCR 100 (B)
  21. Jurisdiction — Findings of fact — High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not sit as a Court of appeal — Findings of fact are ordinarily not open to challenge until and unless a case of gross misreading or non-reading of evidence is made out. Manzoor Fatima and others v. Mst. Zahoor Fatima and others  1993 SCR 115 (C)
  22. Notification issued by the Govt. canceling the impugned allotments. No question of the writ petitions becoming infructious if the impugned allotments are cancelled by the competent authority before the High Court is able to decide the petitions. Appeals accepted — Writ petition remanded. Liaqat Ali v. Chairman Municipal Committee 1993 SCR 96 (D)
  23. Relief- If a party has got cause of action against more than one persons, he cannot be denied relief against only one of such persons- unless it is shown that the cause of action is not seperable. Muazzam Sarfraz  v. Ghazanfar Ullah 1993 SCR 1 (A)
  24. The finding of question of fact cannot be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Abdul Qayyum & others v. Custodian Evacuee property & others 1993 SCR 162 (A)
  25. The High Court can only directly entertain a Writ Petition if it finds that alternate remedy is not adequate —- Existence of another adequate remedy is a rule of law which ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court.  Abdul Rehman & another v. Income Tax Officer Mirpur & others 1993 SCR 186 (A)
  26. The material facts in the writ petition have to be first pleaded and then substantiated by prima facie proof, it is only then that the petitioner can legally urge the same in arguments. Kh. Noor-ul-Amin v.  Sardar Muhammad AbdulQayyum Khan 1993 SCR 27 (D)
  27. Laches — Principle of — To be seen in a peculiar circumstances of each case- second writ was filed about two months after the dismissal of his application for the restoration of the first writ petition. Gul Bahar v. Revising Authority 1993 SCR 327 (A)
  28. Question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the Income Tax Commissioner- no appeal provided against such order- if other conditions of writ are satisfied the writ would be competent. Deputy Collector Excise    v. Abdul Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (B)
  29. Necessary party — Multiple Judge — omission to implead —- the Court is also to be impleaded as a party as any other functionary — Writ in the High Court was incompetent due to non impleadment of Multiple Judge as a party. M. Shafi  v. Feroze Khan & others 1994 SCR 19  (A,C & E)
  30. Laches – impleadment of necessary party at belated stage. M. Shafi  v. Feroze Khan 1994 SCR 19 (D)
  31. Laches — Writ filed eight months after the service of notice of ejectment from plot. Held: Discretionary jurisdiction in Writ cannot be exercised to vindicate the grievance of an idolent person. Muhammad Hussain v. Zafar Iqbal & others 1994 SCR 77 (A)
  32. Affidavit – Proof of – Person who seeks interference of the Court in the discretionary writ jurisdiction must satisfy the Court that he has legal and moral case. M. Hussain v. Zafar Iqbal & others 1994 SCR 77 (B)
  33. Party who does not come with clean hands — Is always refused any relief in the writ jurisdiction. Muhammad Hussain v. Zafar Iqbal & others 1994 SCR 77 (C)
  34. Service matter — Question of jurisdiction — Petitioner- respondent a civil servant — Seeking direction to be issued to give effect to the approved of Acting Prime Minister’s orders relating to determination of seniority – High Court issued directions to the Government to implement the order’s of the Prime Minister- Held: High Court has given directions for giving effect to those matters which are admittedly terms and conditions of service – There being total ouster of jurisdiction the directions given by the High Court are without legal warrant, hence vacated. Raja Naveed Hussain v. Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman & others 1994 SCR 267 (A)
  35. Govt. respondent pleaded that the Prime Minister had ordered the re-examination of the matter — High Court has deprived the P.M. from exercising his legal right to give full consideration to a matter involving rights of the civil servants before according his approval. Raja Naveed Hussain v. Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman & others 1994 SCR 267 (B)
  36. Arguments that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal only against a final order and since there was no final order therefore, the High Court possessed jurisdiction — Argument repelled on the ground that the terms and conditions of service of civil servants are seaside the jurisdiction of the High Court and that Court cannot pass any order to give any direction to enforce any of them. Raja Naveed Hussain v. Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman & others 1994 SCR 267 (C)
  37. ‘Aggrieved party’ -relevant authority has not invited applications — Then any person who falls within the category to whom a plot can be allotted can challenge an allotment made without inviting application by filling writ. Raja M. Asif  v. Chairman Municipal Committee 1994 SCR 167 (B)
  38. Argument that the appellant should have first sought the redress of his grievance by way of appeal or revision, is fallacious and is repelled challenge then writ is competent. M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills  v.  Dy. Collector Excise and Taxation Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 123 (B)
  39. Write — Proceeding which commenced with inviting of applications have to be completed by the authority in accordance with rules — Petitioner if successful, can file writ. Zafar Iqbal v. Allotment Committee of Municipal Committee, Mirpur 1994 SCR 157 (C)
  40. The Right necessary to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction may not necessarily be a right in the strict sense and it is sufficient for that purpose that the petitioner shows that he has an interest that the respondents should act in accordance with law. Azad Govt. v.  M. Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (NN)
  41. There can be no two opinions that a specific order in respect of a person cannot be passed unless he is arrayed as a respondent and is given a proper hearing. Azad Government v.  Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (OO)
  42. Service matter-grivences raised before High Court should be raised before the Service Tribunal — High Court had no jurisdiction. M. Riaz  v. Azad Government & others 1994 SCR 82 (D)
  43. Terms and conditions of civil servant cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceeding. Muhammad Ilyas Suleri v. Muhammad Naseem Khan & others 1994 SCR 90 (B)
  44. Writ can be based on the violation of law. M. Mushtaq v. M. Faiz Abbasi 1994 SCR 95 (A)
  45. If a public functionary is acting under law. He is bound to record correct conclusions about the facts — If fails to do so -Writ jurisdiction would be attracted. Muhammad Mushtaq v. Muhammad Faiz Abbasi & others 1994 SCR 95 (C)
  46. Necessary party — Two separate writ petitions were filed but they were heard and disposed of together-Defect of non-impleadment of necessary party in one of the writ petitions is not crued because two writs are heard and disposed of together. Muhammad Mushtaq  v. Muhammad Faiz Abbasi & others 1994 SCR 95 (I)
  47. Appeal against admission order — This Court sitting as a Court of appeal on the order passed by the High Court would interfere in an order of admission of a writ petition only when it is shown to be clearly violative of constitutional or other legal provisions on a cursory view of the matter and not in case requiring cumbersome appreciation of question of law or fact. Otherwise it will tantamount to pre-empt the jurisdiction of the High Court. Azad Government v. Chairman M.D.A. and others. 1994 SCR 197 (A)
  48. A writ petition is generally admitted ex-parte for regular hearing — The view taken by the High Court at the admission stage is of tentative nature — The opposite party has a right to question the competency of the writ petition. Azad Govt. v. Chairman M.D.A. and others 1994 SCR 197 (B)
  49. Nomination in Medical College — Question of maintainability of writ — Govt. notification issued on 2nd April, 1986 provides an alternate remedy of appeal before the Government — Held: An appeal before the Govt. in nomination cases cannot be looked after by it. Hence writ competent. Javid Alam and another  v.  Nazam Hussain & 9 others 1994 SCR 220 (A)
  50. A remedy of an appeal provided by instruction No.20 cannot be considered to be an adequate one. Held: Writ maintainable. Javid Alam and another v. Nazam Hussain 1994 SCR 220 (B)
  51. Judgment of the High Court based on correct appreciation of facts and sound reasoning, particularly the finding of fact arrived at cannot be interfered with. Javid Alam and another v. Nazam Hussain & 9 others 1994 SCR 220 (C)
  52. A complicated question of fact which falls clearly within the jurisdiction of a special Tribunal cannot be reversed. Ordinarily in the writ petition. Abdul Rashid v. Mst. Qalandar Jan 1994 SCR 235 (A)
  53. A writ of mandamus can only be issued if there is a legal right which vests in the aggrieved person and the person against whom the mandamus is sought is under a legal obligation to perform or refrain from performing an act. Azad Government v. Ansar Burney 1994 SCR 243 (A)
  54. A Court of law has to act within the four corners of law and not out of moral or humanitarian consideration, howsoever compelling the same may be. Azad Government v. Ansar  Burney 1994 SCR 243 (B)
  55. Writ against the Federation of Pakistan would be competent if the matter falls within the ambit of section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and an act or ommission is committed while performing functions in connections with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir — As the writ has been filed against the Federation of Pakistan, it is to be decided as such — An act of Govt. of Pakistan purported to have been done under the Interim Constitution Act is not immune from judicial review of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.  Fedration of Pakistan v. Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (G)
  56. Finding of High Court on the point that Northern Areas were historically and constitutionally part and parcel the Jammu and Kashmir State before 14th August, 1947, suffers from no legal infirmity. Fedration of Pakistan v. Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (H)
  57. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir did not possess the necessary jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Govt. of Pakistan for handing over the control of the Northern Areas to Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Fedration of Pakistan v. Malik M. Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (M)
  58. Question whether functions performed by Organisation or person are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power is not easy to answer — In order to resolve this question the acid test should not be whether a particular function is a function of the State or not but it should be whether in the performance of that function sovereign or public power is being exercised — If it is being exercised it should be sufficient to conclude that the concerned person is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State/AJK. Muhammad Rashid Chaudhary v. Chairman AKLASC & others 1995 SCR 73 (J)
  59. A writ petition has to be decided in light of the self-contained constitutional provision — If a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State acts without lawful authority the High Court has the power to declare that act without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It has also the powers to issue a direction to the respondent to do that which is required by law to do. The view of the learned Judge of this Court in Muhammad Shafi’s case and some earlier judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that High Court cannot restore a person to office, if any Corporation like AKLASC removes a  peson from office in violation of statutory rules, overruled. Muhammad Rashid Chaudhary v. Chairman AKLASC & others 1995 SCR 73 (K)
  60. Aggrieved person — Appellant who was Senior to the private respondents is working as Deputy Manager while the respondents are enjoying the status and powers of Managers and this arrangement has been going on for more than two years and it was claimed in the written statement to be a stop-gap arrangement. The present arrangement is decidedly adverse to the service rights of the appellant which makes him an aggrieved person within the meaning of S.44 of the Interim Constitution Act. M. Rashid Chaudhary v. Chairman AKLASC & others 1995 SCR 73 (M) PLJ 1992 SC (AJ&K) 57, PLD 1969 SC 223, PLJ 1993 SC (AJ&K) 15, 1987 SCMR 2078, relied.
  61. It is not the normal function of the High Court to enter into such questions of fact which have not yet been determined by the departmental authorities. Azad Govt. v. Raiz Ahmad 1995 SCR 159 (D)
  62. The orders of which the respondent wants implementation were passed by the Prime Minister which have neither been implemented nor have been resubmitted to the Prime Minister in accordance with the Rules of Business. In these circumstances a writ petition is maintainable.
  63. Under the Rules of Business the Chief Secretary, and Secretary Services and General Administration are bound to implement the order of the competent authority or to re-submit it for re-consideration. The High Court can therefore issue a direction to do that they are bound to do by law. In such matters the rights of Civil servants are not decided by High Court itself but the functionaries of the State are directed to act in accordance with law and to decided the terms and conditions of service. Farooq Ahmad Khan v. Shaukat Jan Bauch 1995 SCR 374 (A)
  64. Where any mala fide or excess or misuse of powers is attributed and a sufficient inference from the material on record can be gathered in support of the allegation, the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition and granting the necessary relief in a writ of certiorari is not prohibited by law. Ch. Walayat Khan v. Ch. Muhammad Azam 1995 SCR 384 (C) 1994 SCR 123, PLD 1958, SC 41 relied.
  65. Adequate alternative remedy available — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked — Recent weight of the judicial opinion is in support of the view that where an adequate alternate remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction of the high Court cannot be invoked. Zafar Umar Khan and another v.Agricultural Development Bank and 25 others 1996 SCR 321 (A)
  66. Public Service Commission was one of the respondents before the High Court. If a citizen files a writ petition against a functionary and alleges an illegality the respondent cannot be given protection by the High Court if it refuses to issue certified copies if those are demanded. Under rule 38 of the AJK High Court (Procedure) rules, 1984 where it appears to the High Court that it is just it may direct that question falling for determination in a writ petition may be proved by such other evidence and in such manner as the High Court may consider fit. Muhammad Ajaib  v. Public Service Commission and 3 others 1996 SCR 351 (A)
  67. Argument that a writ of mandamus was not competent and only a writ of Quo Warranto could lie repelled. Held: That even a writ of mandamus was competent. Azad Govt. v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 278 (B)
  68. Necessary party — Section 44 of the AJK Interim Constitution Act lays down that a writ can be filed against a ‘person’ performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State. Municipal Corporation is undoubtedly such a personal its Chairman is also a part of it when an act performed by the corporation is being examined. However, if he performs a function or exercises a power which is exclusively vested in him independently of the Corporation then he is independently a person within the meaning of section 414 referred to above. In the former situation the Chairman acts on and in accordance with the wishes of the Corporation but in the later case member of the Corporation, even collectively, cannot influence his decision or share his power and he cannot be construed to be part of the Corporation. Liaqat Ali & another v. Municipal Corporation & 5 others 1996 SCR 391 (A)
  69. S. 44 of the Interim Constitution Act — A writ of mandamus can only be issued when there is a legal right vested in the aggrieved person and the person against whom the mandamus is sought is under a legal obligation to reform or refrain from performing an act. Thus the scope of powers of the High Court and even this Court in accordance with the limits and confines of law as provided in section 44 of the Constitution Act are limited and can only be exercised in the exigencies mentioned above. Ghulam Mustafa v.Azad Government & 2 others 1996 SCR 7 (B)
  70. It is nowhere laid down in section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act that for declaration of appointment of civil servant as illegal only a writ of quo warranto is competent and as such, an appointment of a civil servant cannot be declared as violative of law in a writ petition seeking a declaration in a writ of mandamus.
  71. The scope of writ quo warranto and mandamus is different, inter alia, on the ground that a writ of mandamus can be filed only by an ‘aggrieved person’ whereas a quo warranto can be filed by any State Subject. Miss Azra Hafiz & 10 others  v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 211 (C)
  72. Giving a direction to the police seized with the investigation of a criminal case to submit a challan within reasonable time is not tantamount to interference in the investigation itself and the High Court by giving such direction committed no illegality. Fazal-ur-Rehman v. S. Muhammad Hanif Bukhari and 7 others 1996 SCR 145 (B)
  73. Writ — Service matter — Whether the High Court could issue a direction to the departmental authority for the disposal of a cause. Held: That the direction given by the High Court advances the ends of justice and does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. Admittedly the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to the terms and conditions of service — This position has been followed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. Further held: The High Court has the jurisdiction to issue a direction that departmental authority may dispose of a dispute within a reasonable time if the High Court is satisfied that the departmental authority is procrastinating or is refusing to pass a final order. Mrs. Iffat Ara Saleem  v. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid and 36 others 1996 SCR 254 (A)
  74. Necessary party — In the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court, a specific objection was taken by the non-applicants therein that Azad Govt. was a necessary party which was not arrayed in the category of respondents which entailed the dismissal of writ petition. As the land which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties is the crown land therefore the Govt. was a necessary party — The defect is fatal and in absence of impleadment of necessary party no relief could have been given to the respondents herein. Fazal Hussain  v. Wlidad Khan & 2 others 1996 SCR 271 (A)
  75. Ill-gotton gain cannot be protected by getting the writ issued — It is well settled law that the constitutional jurisdiction under section 44 of the AJK Interim Constitution Act is equitable in nature and cannot be exercised to perpetuate an injustice or to up hold an ill-gotton gain where such situation exists the High Court can validly refuse to set aside even an order passed without jurisdiction. Fazal Hussain  v. Wlidad Khan & 2 others 1996 SCR 271 (C)
  76. Argument that a writ of mandamus was not competent and only a writ of Quo Warranto could lie repelled. Held: That even a writ of mandamus was competent. Azad Govt. v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 278 (B)
  77. Under law no direction can be issued to the Govt. to appoint the appellant who was approved by the Public Service Commission for the posts to be filled up in the year 1991, especially so when requisition was only for 17 C.M.O,s to be inducted in the service of Health Department and the list had already been exhausted — The appellant in the merit list prepared in 1991 was much lower. The High Court has committed no illegality in refusing to issue the said direction to the Government for the induction of the appellant in service. Dr. Mehmood Hussain Kiyani v. Azad Government and 26 others 1996 SCR 165 (A) 1995 SCR 281 relied.
  78. Held further: That on the basis of test and interview held by the P.S.C. in the year 1990 and the posts having been exhausted in accordance with the requisition and the appellant’s position being much lower in the merit list no direction could have been issued in the year 1993 by the High Court to induct the appellant in the service. Dr. Mehmood Hussain Kiyani v. Azad Government and 26 others 1996 SCR 165 (B)
  79. Aggrieved person — No legal injury has been caused to the appellant by the judgment of the High Court — Appellant is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to get any relief. Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta and 3 others 1997 SCR 330 (D)
  80. Contractual liability cannot be enforced through a writ. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd 1997 SCR 336 (B)
  81. AJK Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1983 — Held: Decidedly had a statutory backing and writ could be based on their violation — These rules are not applicable to the N.R.M.P. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. 1997 SCR 336 (G)
  82. Disputed questions of facts — Where no order adequate remedy available it is the duty of the Court to decide disputed questions, if possible, in light of affidavit or other evidence produced by the parties. Muhammad Mahmood v. Aurangzeb and 6 others 1997 SCR 14 (A)
  83. Equal protection of law — Employees of University — University has its own structure of and allowances and are not placed at par with as the Govternment servants. University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Azad & 219 others 1997 SCR 42 (B)
  84. Even question of fact which could have been determined on the perusal of record without adverting to making detailed inquiry is permissible to be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction. M. Hussain and 3 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 12 others 1997 SCR 229 (C)
  85. If a legal order has been passed by the P.M. and is not implemented appropriate forum can be moved for direction of implementation. Abdul Hamid v. Azad Govt. 1997 SCR 96 (C)
  86. If an order of special Tribunal or forum is based on no evidence or it suffers from patent mistake that is open to review in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Khalid Rauf Mir v. Abdul Majeed and another 1997 SCR 275 (E)
  87. Laches — Delay of more than seven years — Material change during this period —  Equal protection of law — Employees of University — University has its own structure of pay and allowances and are not placed at par with as the Government servants. University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Azad & 219 others 1997 SCR 42 (B)
  88. Laches — Delay per se could not normally be a ground for refusal of a writ — Doctrine of laches would only apply where it is unjust to allow a remedy either because of conduct of a party which amount to waiver or has put the other party in a situation of disadvantage. Muhammad Arshad Khan  v. Chairman MDA & 6 others 1997 SCR 5 (C)
  89. Laches — Writ filed after four months — Appellant slept over the matter — Held: Appellant has been indolent and negligent — Writ petition hit by the principle of laches. Saleem Akther v. Judge Family Court & 2 others  1997 SCR 381 (C)
  90. Locus standi — If a plot is allotted without inviting applications from general public every person who has a right to get a plot allotted has locus standi to challenge an illegal allotment. Muhammad Arshad Khan  v. Chairman MDA & 6 others  1997 SCR 5 (A)
  91. Mayor was not arrayed as respondent although Municipal Corporation was impleaded as respondent — Although Mayor is part of Municipal Corporation but while making allotments he exercises powers vested in him independently — Held: Necessary party not impleaded writ petition dismissed. Liaqat Ali  v. Municipal Corporation Mirpur and others 1997 SCR 37 (B)
  92. Necessary party — Basic requirement of — If an order of a public functionary has to be challenged that functionary must be impleaded as a party. Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. and 4 others 1997 SCR 389 (D)
  93. Necessary party — Writ does not lie against a private person means that in such situation a writ cannot lie at all — It does not mean that action of private person can be challenged without making him a party. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd 1997 SCR 336 (I, J)
  94. Necessary party — The functionary whose order is challenged must be made a party. Liaqat Ali and another v. Municipal Corporation Mirpur and 5 others 1997 SCR 37 (A)
  95. Necessary party — Selection Committee which conducted the test and interview of the parties was not arrayed as a respondent — If necessary party which was not impleaded in absence of which no effective writ could be issued, the writ is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Muhammad Ishaque & 3 others  1997 SCR 239 (B)
  96. Order of allotment of accommodation can only be taken away after affording opportunity of hearing and for valid reason — Writ cannot be issued for implementation of orders which were withdrawn before being formally issued. Abdul Hamid v. Azad Govt. and 2 others 1997 SCR 96 (D)
  97. Review not an adequate remedy. A. Qadir & others  v. A. Qadir and 2 others 1997 SCR 65 (A)
  98. Since the appellant already holds allotment of a plot he is disentitled to seek another allotment. Muhammad Hanif  v. Chairman MDA & 6 others 1997 SCR 87 (A)
  99. Where an effective writ could not have been issued due to non-impleadment of a necessary party, the objection may not be raised by any aggrieved party as the same could be gone into by the Court suo moto. Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Muhammad Ishaque & 3 others 1997 SCR 239 (C)
  100. Writ can be issued if the act is without lawful authority and law has been violated — Grievance must be based on law. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd 1997 SCR 336 (A)
  101. Writ — Relief granted by the High Court un-sustainable on two grounds — Firstly that no proceeding or action was taken by the Project Director — There was only recommendation of consultant which is not a Govt. functionary and not impleaded as party — Secondly allotment of work had not been ordered but the High Court quashed it. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd 1997 SCR 336 (K)
  102. Writ is not properly constituted if a public functionary whose order is challenged is not a respondent. Liaqat Ali and another  v. MCM and 5 others 1997 SCR 37 (C)
  103. Public Service Commission is a statutory body — If it violates any rule on the point which adversely affects the fair selection, the High Court is legally justified to give appropriate remedy in writ jurisdiction but the matter which falls within the discretion of Public Service Commission, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction especially so when the discretion exercised advances the cause of justice. Muhammad Ishaque Khan  v. Khurshid Aziz & 3 others 1998 SCR 1 (E)
  104. Competency of the Committee was not challenged in the High Court — Committee previously issued mining licenses for two successive terms but the appellant showed no progress — Appellant has varied his case by challenging the constitution of the Committee. Kashmir Mining and Development Works v. AJK Govt. and 5 others 1998 SCR 9 (A)
  105. Party which does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to the discretionary relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Kashmir Mining and Development Works v. AJK Govt. and 5 others 1998 SCR 9 (B)
  106. Allotment had created a valuable right in favour of the allottee — Once a valuable right comes to be vested in any person it cannot be taken away without hearing. Khalid Mahmood v. Abdul Majid Butt & 4 others 1998 SCR 38 (A)
  107. Contract — Writ does not lie to enforce a contract. Jawad Hussain Jafri  v. Azad Govt. and 4 others 1998 SCR 70 (A)
  108. Order — Setting aside of — Writ can be issued only if there is violation of any legal provision. Jawad Hussain Jafri  v.    Azad Govt. and 4 others 1998 SCR 70 (B)
  109. Order of Prime Minister — Superior Courts can only enforce an order which is legal and valid. Jawad Hussain Jafri  v. Azad Govt. and 4 others 1998 SCR 70 (C)
  110. Creation or abolition of posts — Government has the sole prerogative of creating or abolishing a post. Muhammad Hussain Naqvi  v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 1998 SCR 74 (A)
  111. High Court — Jurisdiction of — Management and control of Shrine — Held: Order of High Court that if the management and control was not possible by the Auqaf Department it may be returned to the previous ‘Mohtamim’ is not within jurisdiction and therefore is not sustainable — As regards the direction that the management and control should be taken over by the Auqaf Department is maintainable as the same was not challenged. Khurshid Ahmed v. Mohtasib 1998 SCR 103 (A)
  112. To maintain a writ it is not necessary that the petitioner should have a right in the strict juristic sense — It is enough if the applicant discloses that he had personal interest — Appellant being the resident of the locality was interested in the affairs of Shrine. Khurshid Ahmed v. Mohtasib & 3 others 1998 SCR 103 (B)
  113. An aggrieved civil servant after waiting for a reasonable time can seek the Constitutional remedy for a direction to the departmental authority to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law. Ghulam-ud-Din v. AJK Government & 2 others 1998 SCR 194 (B)
  114. Writ jurisdiction can’t be exercised for perpetuation of an illegal order. Walayat Begum v. Revising Authority MDA & 3 others 1998 SCR 221 (D)
  115. Writ in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is maintainable only against a public functionary exercising sovereign or public power of AJ&K. Amin Spinning Mills Ltd. v. N.B.P.  1999 SCR 91 (A)
  116. Maintainability — If a person is holding an office in pursuance of transitional arrangement such as deputation, ad hoc etc. writ is maintainable — Permanent incumbency challenged which was found unlawful — The post was available for permanent incumbent held:  In that sense the post is vacant — This part of High Court judgment is within parameters of writ of quo warranto. Muhammad Hanif Khan v. Muhammad Halim Khan and 4 others 1999 SCR 104 (D)
  117. Writ maintainability of — Violation of rule 7 proved — Minister Auqaf not an authority under Waqf Properties  Act and violated the Act and Rules — Clear case of violation of law apart from contract — Writ was maintainable. Nawab Khan v. Azad Govt. and 6 others 1999 SCR 112 (B)
  118. Writ does not lie against a private person — U/s 44 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act a declaration can only be given that any act done proceedings taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of state or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Muhammad Sayyab Khalid v. Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto and 39 others 1999 SCR 396 (A)
  119. Writ of quo warranto can be filed by any person — Even an aggrieved person can file a writ of quo warranto — Only condition is that none can get relief for himself. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Secretary Forest/Toursim AJ&K and another 1999 SCR 404 (A)
  120. An illegal appointment cannot be restored in exercise of writ jurisdiction — One who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Rashid H. v. Gul Afsar Khan and 3 others 1999 SCR 435 (C)
  121. Finding of interpolation and forgery cannot be recorded in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Manzoor Ahmad Butt and 7 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 7 others 1999 SCR 439 (C)
  122. Occurrence took place on 15.1.1997 — Respondents filed writ petition on 23.2.1998, after more than a year — Respondent has been guilty of gross negligence and a person who had been indolent and negligent in pursuing his remedy, at least is not entitled to the discretionary relief by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Khadam Hussain v. Abdul Rehman  1999 SCR 484 (B)
  123. Filing of appeal before Syndicate — Sixteen months elapsed — Not decided — Distinguishing feature from previous judgments — New factor yet to be seen by High Court — Admission order suffers from no illegality. Waqar H.  v. Naeem Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1999 SCR 261 (A)
  124. Certiorari/mandamus and quo warranto — Difference between — In the former a petitioner may seek relief for himself — In the latter does not seek relief for himself — He has to challenge the authority under which a respondent is holding public office. Muhammad Azad Khan  v. Vice-Chancellor and another 1999 SCR 270 (A)
  125. An illegal and unlawful order could not have been enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Aftab Ahmed and 5 others v. Muhammad Aftab Ahmed and 3 others 1999 SCR 119 (D)
  126. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked seeking the implementation of an order which is illegal on the very face of it. Ejaz Ahmad Awan & others v. Manzoor Ali Shah & another 1999 SCR 204 (B)
  127. Direction issued by High Court that respondents shall not be repatriated to their parent departments, clearly relates to terms and conditions of a civil servant — Where terms and conditions of service of civil servants are involved, the jurisdiction of High Court totally ousted. Abdul Majid & 24 others v. Abdul Latif Shah and 4 others 1999 SCR 459 (B)
  128. The High Court is not bound to decide the points raised in the writ petition if the same were not pressed at the time of arguments — A point which was argued at the time of arguments in the High Court or for that matter in any other Court, but the same was not resolved, then the concerned counsel has to give an affidavit that the point was argued but the same was not resolved. Iftikhar Ahmad Khilji v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 1999 SCR 366 (A)
  129. A citizen who is out of service can challenge the appointment of functionaries of Govt. by filing a writ of quo-warranto — Writ of quo-warranto does not require the petitioner to be an aggrieved person. Sadaqat Hussain Shah & 4 others v. AJ&K Govt. & 3 others 1999 SCR 145 (A)
  130. Order passed by the Ombudsman was in pursuance of the observations made by this Court — Even if it is assumed that the order passed by the Ombudsman suffered from any legal infirmity or it was without jurisdiction, the same could not be annulled in exercise of writ jurisdiction — High Court was not correct in holding that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction after the judgment of this Court to pass the impugned order directing the respondent to pay the enhanced compensation to the appellants. Abdul Qadeer and 148 others  v. AJK University and another 2000 SCR 22 (C)
  131. Prayer clause of the writ petition clearly shows that the respondent seeks implementation of the order of Secretary concerned — There can hardly be any doubt that the question of the implementation of the order of competent authority is altogether different matter from seeking the relief regarding the terms and conditions of service — The question as to whether the order of seniority of the respondent was illegal for one reason or the other, may be seen by the High Court in regular hearing within the limits permissible under law and not at this stage — Held: High Court was justified to admit the writ petition for regular hearing. Rakshanda Kokab and 20 others v. Kaneez Akhtar and 5 others 2000 SCR 7 (A)
  132. A person who seeks relief by invoking writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. Azad Government and 3 others  v. Abdul Ghaffar Butt and 2 others 2000 SCR 250 (D)
  133. Admission of — Writ not admitted for regular hearing and subsequent proceeding on the assumption that writ had been admitted for regular hearing — Not sustainable. Azad Government and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashfaq Khan 2000 SCR 340 (A)
  134. Aggrieved person competent to file the writ — Allotment of plot — Natural justice. Abdul Shakoor v. Chairman M.D.A. and 9 others 2000 SCR 354 (C)
  135. High Court — Observation of — Held: Observation recorded by the High Court does not appear to be correct — reason stated. Abdul Shakoor v. Chairman MDA and others 2000 SCR 354 (A)
  136. Pleadings — High Court went beyond the pleadings — Ground was neither taken in writ petition nor same was agitated at the time of hearing — Grounds of pre-qualification of contractor being alien to the pleadings could not be made basis of the impugned judgment. Azad Government and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashfaq Khan 2000 SCR 340 (C)
  137. Respondent was not in B-20 when he filed writ petition in the High Court therefore he could not be legally appointed as Executive Director AIMS — Chief Secretary was well advised in not sending the recommendations of Selection Board for approval of Prime Minister — Once he realised that the purposed order would not be legal — A writ cannot be issued for giving effect to an lawful order. Shabir Kayani  v.  Mushtaq Ahmad Gardazi and 4 others 2000 SCR 557 (D) 1999 SCR 204 & 1995 SCR 281 rel.
  138. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to protect ill-gotten gain. Secretary For Prime Minister and 3 others  v.  Muhammad Aslam and 5 others 2000 SCR 263 (B)
  139. Writ petition was filed before the High Court when the appellant had already become a civil servant but that does not change the legal position — Apart from the fact that cause of action had risen to the appellant when he was not a civil servant he could not file appeal before the Service Tribunal against Public Service Commission even when he had become a civil servant — The fact that the appellant had become a civil servant did not change the position — The order by which he was feeling aggrieved had been passed by a body which was not a departmental authority. Munir Qadir v. Chairman P.S.C. and 4 others 2000 SCR 456 (B)
  140. Writ of quo warranto — Laches — Mala fide of relator — High Court left undecided moot points of age and absence of experience etc. Held: Question of laches is not relevant in case of writ of quo warranto —The question of laches can only be considered along with other circumstances in the context of mala fide of the relator. M. Ishaq v. The Speaker AJK Assembly 2001 SCR 45 (A)
  141. In exercise of writ jurisdiction it is not possible in law to substitute the opinion of the Secretary by the opinion of the Court. Win Pipe Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Azad Govt. 2001 SCR 88 (A)
  142. While exercising writ jurisdiction if found that issuance of writ would tantamount to perpetuate injustice the High Court may refuse to issue a writ.  Custodian Evacuee Property v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2001 SCR 432 (A) 1993 SCR 39,1993SCR 105, 1993 SCR 159, 1998 SCR 9 rel.
  143. Party who seeks redressal of his grievance by invoking writ jurisdiction must come with clean hand. Custodian Evacuee Property v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2001 SCR 432 (B)
  144. C.P.C. — Applicability of — Cause of action — Allotments made in favour of different persons in different years and challenged on various grounds not common in all allotment — Held: Cannot be challenged by filing a single writ — C.P.C. applicable to the proceedings in a writ and mis-joinder of cause of action is fatal in writ. Manzoor Hussain  v. Administrator/Mayor Municipal Corporation, Mirpur And 28 others 2001 SCR 444 (A)
  145. Allotment — Laches — Knowledge-Delay in filing writ not satisfactorily explained — Relief cannot be granted on an application for allotment which was made after about ten years prior to the filing of writ petition — Held: High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. Manzoor H. v. Administrator/Mayor Municipal Corporation, Mirpur 2001 SCR 444 (B)
  146. Writ jurisdiction — Quashment of criminal proceedings — Held: High Court has no jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation — Held further — In exercise of writ jurisdiction High Court is not competent to assume the role of investigating agency or trial Court to give verdict as to whether an accused person has committed an offence or not — Criminal case against accused be proceeded with according to law. Khadam Husssain v. Abdul Basit and 6 others 2001 SCR 447 (A)
  147. Except the authority from Karachi jurisdiction, the High Courts of Pakistan the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Court and Supreme Court of AJK are unanimously of the opinion that a writ petition can be entertained only on the application of an aggrieved person and not by a probono publico litigant — In other words a person whose interests have been adversely affected by impugned legislation or order under challenge, he can competently file a writ petition and then file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court as required by law. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (A)
  148. Appellant was not a party before the High Court nor he was a candidate to be appointed as Chief Election Commissioner nor his personal interest, if any, was adversely affected, therefore, he could not lodge the appeal. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (B)
  149. None of the learned counsel for the parties have cited any authority that any private person who though belongs to legal fraternity could either lodge a writ petition or could lodge an appeal in this Court particularly when he was not a party before the High Court when his personal interests were not adversely affected — Therefore, the preliminary objection has a substance that the appellant had no local standi or any cause of action to file the appeal. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (C)
  150. There is a wide difference between a writ of certiorari and a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of quo warranto — Except writ of habeas corpus and writ of quo warranto which can be invoked by any person the other writs can be prayed for only by an aggrieved person. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (D)
  151. An aggrieved party is one in a writ of prohibition whose rights are threatened, in writ of mandamus whose rights are being denied and in writ of certiorari whose rights have been affected by decision. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (E)
  152. The word ‘‘right’’ is not used in strict juristic sense — It is sufficient if the person alleging to be an aggrieved has a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty which if not performance of a legal duty which if not performed would result in the loss of some personal advantage. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (F)
  153. A party who stands to lose or gain an advantage by observance or non-observance of law is an aggrieved party. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (G)
  154. A person aggrieved must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council & 3 others 2001 SCR 530 (H)
  155. In respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service no writ of prohibition can be issued to deprive competent authority from amending, cancelling or rescinding any order, notification earlier issued by it. Muhammad Suleman and 5 others v. AJK Govt. and 2 others 2001 SCR 372 (B) 1995 SCR 292, 1994 SCR 267 ref.
  156. The High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition — The appellants were rightly advised to seek the redressal of their grievances by availing remedy before the Service Tribunal. Muhammad Suleman and 5 others v. AJK Govt. and 2 others 2001 SCR 372 (C)
  157. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction made available to the High Court under section 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 could not be treated as substitute for an appeal or revision — This jurisdiction can be availed favourably in extraordinary circumstances by showing that the impugned order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction. Chairman, AKLASC & 2 others v. Abdul Hameed Siddique and another 2001 SCR 334 (C)
  158. Employees of Corporation are not civil servants — High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of employees of the Corporation. Saleem Ahmad and another v. AJ&K Govt. and 5 others 2001 SCR 258 (C)
  159. Witness — Summoning of — Contention that Custodian had summoned some of the witnesses but their statements were not recorded is not tenable because the findings of Custodian have not been challenged in writ on that score. Abdul Hamid v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 29 others 2001 SCR 210 (C)
  160. Jurisdiction of High Court as Court of appeal and in writ proceedings — Difference — While exercising writ jurisdiction High Court does not sit as Court of appeal on the order passed by the subordinate Court or tribunal. Abdul Hamid v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 29 others 2001 SCR 210 (D)
  161. It is well settled proposition of law that relief in writ petition being discretionary in nature is granted in light of circumstances of each case. Baqa M. Khan v. Custodian of Evacuee Property & others 2001 SCR 344 (B)
  162. Party which does not come with clean hands cannot be given relief. Ghulam Rasool & 2 others v. Minister for Rehabilitation & 3 others 2002 SCR 8 (B)
  163. Quo warranto — Dismissed on the ground of malice — There is no dispute that earlier writ petition filed by Raja Muhammad Razaq on the same grounds on which the present writ petition has been filed was dismissed — The allegations of respondent No.1 that the appellant filed the present writ petition at the instance of Raja Muhammad Razaq and that the appellant not only belongs to his ‘brothery’ but had been his driver, have not been rebutted by filing counter affidavit — It is also on the record that it was Raja Muhammad Razaq, the previous petitioner, who obtained the copy of the relevant order which has been filed along with the present writ petition — Writ based on malice rightly dismissed by the High Court. Muhammad Younas Khan v. Tariq Bin Saeed & another 2002 SCR 232 (A)
  164. Issuance of — Pleading — Observation by High Court — Held: High Court has unnecessarily probe into the question as to whether appellant was qualified for being appointed as Assistant Engineer or not – The observations made by the High Court are of no legal consequence especially when the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, after the stand taken by respondents no.2 and 3, had become infructuous and should have been dismissed on that sole ground. SAGHIR AHMED MUGHAL vs. MUNAWAR HUSSAIN and 3 others 2002 SCR 404 (A)
  165. Writ — Terms and conditions of service — Promotion — Laches — Question of terms and conditions of civil servant cannot be made basis for invoking writ jurisdiction. NASEER AHMED KAYANI and another vs. Qazi MASOOD-UR-REHMAN and another 2002 SCR 414 (A)
  166. Policy — Construction of school — Allegation of mala fide is not maintainable because no such averment has been made in the writ — No point has been taken by the respondent that there was any ‘policy’ of the Government that only Rs. 2,00,000/- would be allocated for the construction of the primary school — Report of Assistant Commissioner has not been placed on the file of the Court below and thus cannot be taken into consideration. Azad Government v. Muhammad Mansha and 10 others 2002 SCR 425 (A)
  167. It is an adequacy and not mere absence of alternate remedy which determines the propriety of the writ — Aternate remedy must be equally convenient beneficial and effective only then the High Court can refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. Muhammad Azim Zia v. Nazir Ahmed Qadri & others 2003 SCR 44 (C)
  168. Delay — Result of P.S.C. was declared on 14.7.2000 — Writ petition filed on 22.3.2003 was hit by laches — No resonable explanation has been offered for filing such a delayed writ petition — Writ petition in view of celebrated law by this Court cannot be entertained after such an inordinate delay. Shafique Ahmad Chaudhary  v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2003 SCR 310 (A)
  169. Where detailed investigation of facts is needed to arrive at a conclusion, the writ petition has never been considered a proper legal remedy. Shafique Ahmad Ch. v. Azad Govt. 2003 SCR 310 (B)
  170. Who can file a writ petition — A person who has no locus standi cannot file writ petition or an appeal before the Supreme Court the essential requirement for filing a writ petition or appeal is that the person should be aggrieved and he should have cause of action. M. Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 17-miles & 6 others 2003 SCR 363 (G)
  171. Admission order — Challenge to — The admission order in writ jurisdiction must be a speaking order — The jurisdiction in a writ petition is extraordinary jurisdiction the same should be exercised with due care and caution — The order admitting the writ petition for regular hearing should be a speaking order — While admitting a writ petition the High Court is required to formulate the points not only for reply of respondents but also for decision of the controversy involved. Ali Shan v. Nazeer Hussain Shah and 6 others 2004 SCR 373 (A)
  172. Petitioner made a statement before the Custodian, therefore, allotment or respondent No.6 was restored — Assertion that petitioner did not comply the terms of compromise has no substance as no such condition was ever laid down in the compromise — Held: A person who is a consenting party cannot agitate the matter through writ petition. Abdul Karim v. Custodian Evacuee Property & 5 others 2004 SCR 123 (A)
  173. The law is settled that the writ petition cannot be filed to enforce the contractual obligation. AJK BISE Mirpur and 3 others v. Engineer M. Khalid  2004 SCR 136 (A)  1992 SCR 381 rel.
  174. Writ admission of — Challenge to — It is noticed that admission orders are assailed before this Court in routine — The superior Courts of Sub-Continent have rarely interfered with in the orders of admission of writ petition. However, Supreme Court in few cases intervened on two-fold reasons: (I)    firstly that the Court had total lack of jurisdiction; (ii)    secondly that order was passed in total disregard of law. Mustafa Awan v. Khalil Ahmed Chughtai and 4 others 2004 SCR 476 (A)
  175. Counter affidavit — Non-filing of — Presumption of correctness is attached to the official acts, but this is rebutable presumption — Appellant has filed an affidavit that the appointment order was ever conveyed to him — No person from Department filed affidavit that appointment order was conveyed to the appellant — The version of appellant was accepted as correct — In writ jurisdiction the Courts have to rely upon affidavits — If an affidavit given by a party is not rebutted, then the presumption would be that the facts pleaded in the affidavit are accepted as correct by the other side. Muahammad Ishaque  v. Azad Govt. & 5 others  2005 SCR 9 (A)
  176. Writ petition was filed after the lapse of 215 days — There was no jurisdiction to condone the delay   — The respondent appeared in test and interview — If he was not satisfied by the conduct of Selection Committee he should have filed a writ petition well in time.  Gulzar Ahmed v. Naveed Ahmed & 5 others 2005 SCR 46 (A)
  177. The disputed question of fact are not allowed to be raised and resolved in writ jurisdiction — Moreover the respondent has been notified as returned candidate, this petition has become infructuous  and is liable to be dismissed on this ground too. Ch. Arshad Hussain v. Rukhsar Ahmad & others 2006 SCR 85 (B)
  178. In every writ of quo warranto the Court has first to satisfy itself about the conduct and motive of the relator— The writ of quo -warranto cannot be issued as a matter of course on sheer technicalities as held in a series of cases by this Court and the Courts of Pakistan — It is the discretionary relief and the Court has to scrutinize the petition as well the conduct of the petitioner before passing any order. Syed Amjad Ali v. Chaudhry Amir Afzal & 5 others 2006 SCR 153 (C) PLD 1969 SC 42, PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 41, Civil PLA No. 90 of 1991 and PLD 1993 SC (AJ&K) 12 rel.
  179. Notwithstanding the availability of the alternate remedy the High Court can, in suitable cases, entertain and decide a writ petition where remedy was also available — When the facts and circumstances, out of which the case arises require elaborate and detailed examination and analysis, the course is to approach to the Court which has proper regular jurisdiction under law to record the evidence, examine record and then pass order — In writ jurisdiction High Court ordinarily decides the case on the basis of documents and affidavits before it — It was not required nor is it ordained that Court shall examine the record of the Tribunal or authority which has passed the order. Muhammad Riaz & 8 others v. Pervaiz mehandi & 72 others 2006 SCR 195 (B)
  180. Writ jurisdiction is not akin to the appeal or revisional jurisdiction of Court, but extraordinary remedy. Muhammad Riaz & 8 others v. Pervaiz mehandi & 72 others 2006 SCR 195 (C)
  181. Affidavit — Can only be acted upon if it has been sworn by a person who is acquainted with and has personal knowledge of lis brought before the Court. Syed Irfan Hussain naqvi  v. Al-Khair university & 4 others 2007 SCR 491 (E)
  182. Writ petitions are decided on the basis of documents and affidavits — A party cannot be non-suited on the ground that other party has denied the correctness of documents — If documentary evidence is found sufficient to substantiate the contention of petitioner, in a writ petition — The same can be decided on that ground without any other supporting evidence. Syed Irfan Hussain naqvi v. Al-Khair university & 4 others 2007 SCR 491 (B) 1997 SCR 229 &  1997 SCR 14 rel.
  183. Standard of evidence to prove a fact in case of civil nature and in criminal case is not the same —Courts have to be extra conscious while deciding a criminal case — In civil cases some evidence has to be produced to substantiate the claim placed before the Court by a party — It is only the quality of evidence and not the quantity which has to be seen by the Court. Syed Irfan Hussain naqvi  v. Al-Khair university & 4 others 2007 SCR 491 (C)
  184. Summoning of record — Trend of authorities during the last two decades has been to settle the controversies brought before the High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction on merits — For that purpose Constitutional Courts in appropriate cases summoned the record and entered into inquiry themselves. Syed Irfan Hussain naqvi  v. Al-Khair university 2007 SCR 491 (G)
  185. Writ petition not admitted for regular hearing — Petitioners have not filed comments and placed their point of view before High Court — This Court remains slow to pre-empt the findings of High Court — Unless the High Court finally adjudicates on points raised in the writ petition and disputed by the other party, it does not even appear in the interest of justice for this Court to pock in or interfere. Mirpur Development Authority v. Ch. Aarif Najeeb & 13 others 2007 SCR 545 (B)
  186. Alternate remedy — Through a writ petition an order for compensation has been craved — Moreover a direction was sought against Police to register a case against respondent — The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a suit for damages in civil Court — The facts mentioned in writ petition have to be proved through evidence — Disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction — Held: the writ petition was rightly dismissed. Muhammad Ashfaq v. Superintendent Police & 2 others 2007 SCR 275 (A)
  187. Writ petition dismissed in default — Restoration of — When application for restoration was moved and objections were filed, it was enjoined upon the Court to frame issues and provide chance for leading evidence in support of their assertions — Neither issues were framed nor opportunity of producing evidence was provided — Learned counsel has no objection if application for restoration is allowed on payment of costs — Application allowed on payment of Rs. 1500/-  — Case remanded with the direction that the case shall be decided on merit. Sher Muhammad Khan v. AJ&K Government & 6 others 2007 SCR 96 (A)
  188. Objection that writ petitions were not competently filed in High Court or the appeal in this Court in representative capacity — Held: devoid of force — In view of fact that the writ petitions filed by appellants clearly reveal that they claimed their right for grant of benevolent fund admissible to them under law — By pleading that Act of 2002 having been given retrospective effect cannot deprive them of their vested right accrued to them under repealed laws, decisive steps having been taken and confirmed/approved by High Court — Held further: Writ petitions cannot be termed to have been filed in representative capacity simply on the grounds that in the body of writ petitions the appellants have urged that other employees are also entitled to the grant of benevolent fund — Held further: even if it is presumed that the writ petitions filed are only in respect of unconstitutionality of a piece of legislation — It is not at all required that all those who are affected by the piece of legislation should file writ petition or be arrayed as party in the proceedings before Court of law. Abdul Rasheed and 85 others v. Board of Trustees and others 2008 SCR 417 (C)
  189. Nomination Policy — Alternate remedy — Maintain-ability of — Rule 20 of policy for nomination provides a remedy of appeal before the Government from the order passed by Nomination Board — But it is common experience that appeals before the Government cannot be decided expeditiously — Cases involving admission in professional Colleges are of urgent nature and need resolution expeditiously — In the cases involving nomination in Medical Colleges alternate remedy by way of appeal before Government is not an efficacious remedy. Abdullah Yuousaf  v. Miss Kishwar Tasleem and 4 others 2009 SCR 586 (A)
  190. Writ — Powers of High Court to issue direction — Legal objection that a writ is not competent for direction to police functionaries for rejecting the case of a particular person. Held: The High Court is possessed with the powers to direct any functionary of the State to do what they are legally required to do and abstain from doing anything which they are not allowed by law to do but at the same time it is also requirement of law that any functionary of the State, who has domain over specific sphere, should not be hampered to perform his part of duty. Ch. Muhammad Younas Arvi & 2 others v. Abdul Aziz Ch. & 4 others 2011 SCR 50 (A)
  191. It is settled principle of law and the case law that jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked only where the aggrieved person doesn’t has any alternate remedy or for that matter, efficacious one. Ch. Muhammad Younas Arvi & 2 others v. Abdul Aziz Ch. & 4 others 2011 SCR 50 (C)
  192. Remedies for an aggrieved person — Firstly FIR — Secondly — Private complaint — Writ is not maintainable in presence of available efficacious remedies to a complainant — When an offence is committed, the first remedy available to a complainant is to lodge an FIR, promptly indeed, with the police and if his case is not registered he has the option to approach the higher police authorities or immediately file a private complaint before the Magistrate or a Court of criminal jurisdiction as the case may be — In each case he has to remain vigilant and approach the forum in time. Held: Filing of writ petition in presence of available remedy or right is rare and cannot be justified on the ground that the High Court has jurisdiction to direct the functionaries of the State to do what they are required by law to do. Further held: Under the order of the Court reopening of a criminal case and subsequent investigation must be avoided and should not be adhered to as a routine keeping in view that jurisdiction under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 is discretionary in nature. Ch. Muhammad Younas Arvi & 2 others v. Abdul Aziz Ch. & 4 others 2011 SCR 50 (D)
  193. Admission order — Must be speaking one and should not be passed in routine — Argument, that admission of a writ petition is not merely a routine matter, held: has a force when revert to the Institution of petitions and Grant of writ Rules, 1975 which still holds the field and furnish an extra caution by providing that at the admission stage a writ petition must be heard by a division bench although it may be decided by a learned single Judge of the High Court — On the ground of  load of  work  or shortage of Judges herein Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan the writ petitions are admitted for regular hearing in many cases through a non-speaking  order but the referred eventuality cannot change the legal position and procedure laid down by a specific codal provision — Even this practice is allowed, held: It still remains the duty of the Judge to admit a writ petition for regular hearing after attending to the legal position involving the jurisdiction of the High Court and other points particularly considering the legal mischief of laches and status of the applicant qualifying him to be an aggrieved person. Muhammad Rasib v. Mst. Maqsood Begum & 17 others 2011 SCR 59 (B)
  194. Jurisdiction of High Court as a Court of appeal and in writ — There is marked distinction between the jurisdiction vested in a civil Court while exercising the powers as a Court of appeal and the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in writ jurisdiction — The High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit upon the judgment of subordinate Courts or the local Authorities or Tribunal as a Court of appeal. M. Rasib v. Mst. Maqsood Begum & 17 others 2011 SCR 59 (C)
  195. Writ — Not maintainable to protect an illegal order or ill-gotten gain. Held: Temporary appointment does not constitute a valid right for a person to get restraint order from the High Court to protect an illegal order or ill-gotten gain — Appellant was inducted in service on temporary basis, which has rightly been withdrawn by the competent authority. The appellant is not an aggrieved person in the eye of law, his writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the High Court.  District Health Officer and 3 others 2011 SCR 75 (A)
  196. Writ can be filed by any person who has some interest or right to challenge the action of State functionaries, may be of a smallest cog. Collector Federal Excise    & Sales tax & 4 others v. M/S Hilton Tobacco Co. (Pvt) Ltd 2011 SCR 93 (B)
  197. Writ — Jurisdiction and scope — Limited one. Held: The writ jurisdiction is limited and is exercised according to the parameters laid down by the Constitution — Writs are issued if Court satisfied that any act is done in derogation of law or has not been done as required by the law to be done. Bostan Ch. v. Audit and Accountants Deptt.& 6 others 2011 SCR 279 (G)
  198. In absence of other alternate or efficacious remedy, any illegal act done by any authority, writ jurisdiction can be invoked by a person so aggrieved. Mumtaz Rasool Mir v. Tariq Mir & 6 others 2011 SCR 299 (D)
  199. Withdrawal of writ before admission—the writ petition was at the preliminary stage and even admission order was not passed, thus there was no embargo to allow withdrawal of writ petition. Somia Riaz  v.  Ammara Shahnawaz & 12 others 2014 SCR 251 (B) PLD 1973 SC 406, rel.,
  200. Withdrawal of — the provisions of CPC have to be applied to the writ petition as far as practicable and not strictly in letters and spirit. Somia Riaz  v. Ammara Shahnawaz 2014 SCR 251 (D)
  201. Writ petition is only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision or celebrated principle of law and justice. AJ&K Govt. & others v. Dr. M. Amin 2014 SCR 258 (C)
  202. Writ against concurrent findings recorded by Courts/Tribunal of special jurisdiction — its maintainability — Held; that without pointing out any lack of jurisdiction and violation of law, writ petition against concurrent findings recorded by Courts/Tribunal of special jurisdiction is not maintainable. Muhammad Mobeen Khan v. Farzand Begum & 8 others 2014 SCR 291 (E)
  203. It is now settled that the writ jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked to protect the ill-gotten gains.  AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & 2 other 2014 SCR 382 (I) 1992 SCR 149, 2002 SCR 38 and PLD 1973 SC 236 ref.
  204. Maintainability of writ against order passed in revisional  jurisdiction — civil suit — evidence closed by the trial Court — order challenged in revision before Distt. Judge — order passed by the trial Court as well as revisional Court are quite in accordance with law and principles of justice—neither they have violated any provision of law nor their orders are void, perverse or illegal. Held: in such state of affairs, there is no occasion for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Zakia Begum v. Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2014 SCR 658 (D) 2005 CLC 197, 2005 CLC 1422, and Nazir Ahmed and others  v.  Riaz Ahmed and other (Civil Appeal No.29/2012, decided on 15.3.2012) rel.
  205. Service matters — maintainability — plea that as the vires of the rules have been challenged, therefore, only the High Court was competent to adjudicate upon the matter.  Held: the learned High Court assumed the jurisdiction on the point that vires of the rules have been challenged.  The High Court while rendering the impugned judgment has observed that the case reported as Ghiasul Haq and others  v.  Azad Govt. and others [PLD 1980 SC (AJ&K) 5] is not fully applicable, whereas, in our estimation, this case is fully applicable in the case in hand.  Further held: in Ghiasul Haq’s case this Court has categorically held that the vires of the rules can be challenged before the Service Tribunal as the same is the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. Syed Rashed Hussain Shah v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 883 (F)
  206. Necessary party — Law is settled that the functionary who passes an order against a party, the writ petition without arraying him as party in the line of respondents is not competent. Muhammad Anayat Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Iltaf Khan & another 2014 SCR 1085 (A) 2011 SCR 159, 2012 SCR 181 & 2012 SCR 415 & PLJ 2013 SC (AJ&K) 18, rel.
  207. Necessary party — original order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller — without arraying him as party in the line of respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable — without impleading as party in the line of respondents, the state functionary whose order is under challenge, the writ petition is not maintainable. Muhammad Anayat Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Iltaf Khan & another 2014 SCR 1085 (B) PLJ 1996 SC (AJ&K) 104 & PLJ 2009 Lah. 140, rel.
  208. Maintainability — writ petition which is hit by mischief of acquiescence, estoppels or laches is not maintainable. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (A)
  209. Admission of — regular hearing — According to the celebrated principle of law,  for admission of writ petition, the petitioner has to prima-facie substantiate his contentions with the support of available possible material and when the Court is satisfied that the factual proposition brought on record  by the petitioner in writ petition according to its nature also finds support from such material; or  otherwise admissible legal proof requires serious consideration for enforcement of fundamental rights or any statutory law, the petition can be admitted for regular hearing — If the Court is not satisfied or the legal and factual proposition  stated by the petitioner in the writ petition  are not satisfactorily supported from the record or material produced by the petitioner, the Court may refuse to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction or admit such writ petition for regular hearing. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (B)
  210. Admission of — according  to consistent practice of this Court and the statutory law, for admitting the writ petition,  the supporting material along with the contents of  writ petition has to be properly appreciated, and after appreciation, if the Court comes to the conclusion that irrespective of the objections of respondents, if the petitioner in view of his own produced material could not succeed to substantiate his stance and the  admission of writ petition  will be fruitless exercise, in such case, the Courts should not hesitate in rejecting the writ petition. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (C)
  211. Admission of — prima facie case — According to the celebrated principle of law, it is duty of the petitioner in writ petition to make out prima-facie case. If he fails, the writ petition can be rejected at preliminary stage. Azad Govt. &others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (D) 1993 SCR 27  rel.
  212. Preliminary stage — Interference by the Supreme Court. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (F) PLD 1993 SC (AJ&K) 12  ref. 
  213. Order VII, rule 11, CPC — applicability — As the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the writ proceedings — Under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, of Civil Procedure Code, the Court can reject the plaint if it appears from the statement of the plaint that it is barred by any law. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar 2014 SCR 1470 (H)
  214. Section 44 — writ jurisdiction — Once it has been established that alternate remedy provided under law is not efficacious in nature, the relief sought while invoking the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be refused. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (HH) PLD 1966 SC 639, 2002 SCMR 1632 & Noman Razaq vrs. Faryad Hussain & others (civil appeal No. 136/2012 decided  on 21.4.2014  rel
  215. Delay — unexplained delay — laches — mere delay cannot be a ground for dismissal of writ petition but unexplained delay is always considered fatal in writ jurisdiction — There may be certain cases where period of many years do not attract the laches but there may be some cases where mere a period of month’s delay attracted the laches. Muhammad Malick v. Manzoor Hussain & 90 others 2015 SCR 259 (B)
  216. Writ jurisdiction — exercise of — The remedy by way of writ petition is quite different as compared to appeal—The party may file an appeal by right but writ jurisdiction can only be exercised if the order passed by the authority or tribunal is illegal or authority or tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law. Muhammad Malick v. Manzoor Hussain & 90 others 2015 SCR 259 (C)
  217. Against AJK Bar Council — maintainability of — it can safely be held that according to the status and role assigned under law, the Bar Council is a person performing functions in connections with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Held:  the writ petition is competent against it. Shoukat Hussain Awan v. AJ&K Bar Council & 4 others 2015 SCR  284 (C)
  218. Illegal act — no legal right created — ill-gotten gains — no protection to — the writ jurisdiction is discretionary relief. According to celebrated principle of law any act in violation of law neither creates any legal right in favour of its beneficiary nor writ can be issued for protection of ill-gotten gains or implementation of illegal orders. Shoukat Hussain Awan v. AJ&K Bar Council & 4 others 2015 SCR  284 (H)1992 SCR 149 &1992 SCR 307,2000 SCR 557 & 2000 SCR 263 ref.
  219. Writ — maintainability of — according to the celebrated principle of law it is always duty of the petitioner in the writ petition to state the material, factual and legal proposition and also for substantiating their factual aspects, bring on record the required proof. Shear Dil & another v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2015 SCR 355 (A)
  220. Writ — maintainability of  — contents and material —  according to celebrated principle of law it is the duty of the petitioner in writ petition to bring on record sufficient material to enable the court to determine the propositions involved in the case. Shear Dil & another v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2015 SCR 355 (B)    Public Service Commission and others Vs. Jamil Ahmed, (Civil Appeal No. 13/2012), Public Service Commission & others Vs.  Muhammad Naeem Khan Tanoli & others,  (Civil Appeal No. 76/2013), Shazia Faiz  Vs. Public Service Commission and others (Civil appeal No. 166/2012) rel.
  221. Maintainability — alternate remedy — Jurisdiction of custodian challenged — Held: the law is settled on the point that when the order of an authority is challenged on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction to pass the order, then it is not necessary to avail the remedy of review petition before the said authority. Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Saddique &others 2015 SCR 646 (A) 1994 SCR 123 & 2001 SCR 191 rel.
  222. Further held: The remedy by way of review petition before the custodian is not an alternate, efficacious remedy — the writ petition is competent. Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Saddique &others 2015 SCR 646 (B)
  223. AJ&K Civil Servants (Appointment & Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules 1977 — Rule 6 Azad Jammu & Kashmir Secretariat Service Rules, 1978 — Rule, 4 — necessary party — Writ dismissed on the ground that concerned Minister not arrayed party — Under above Rules the appointing authority of Section Officers, B-17 is the Govt. — Concerned Minister is not   the authority, as such, held: he is not necessary party. Tariq Javaid v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 653 (A)
  224. By courts — principle — According to the enforced law, the Investigating Agency is vested with the powers to investigate the matter impartially. Consequently, the Courts avoid to interfere with the investigation unless there appears any visible departure from law or violation of the principles of law Perveen Azam  v. S.S.P District Mirpur 2015 SCR 837 (A)
  225. Jurisdiction of Court — Exercise of — According to the spirit of the constitution, writ jurisdiction can be exercised where there is violation of law or principle of law — The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is very limited and can be exercised in extra-ordinary circumstances — the interference in the matters  falling in the domain of  Investigating Agency, is not permissible. Perveen Azam v. S.S.P District Mirpur 2015 SCR 837 (B)  2014 SCR 809 rel.
  226. Exercise of — matters requiring detailed inquiry — not permissible — according to the celebrated principle of law enunciated by the Superior Courts, the complex and complicated factual proposition like the one involved in this case requiring detailed inquiry and probe, cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (A)
  227. Allegation of tempering of record — maintainability of writ — according to the celebrated principle of law, such like questions cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction, therefore, among others, on this sole ground, the writ petition was not maintainable. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (B) 1998  SCR 325 rel.
  228. Illegal orders — implementation of — ill-gotten gains — protection of — discussed and the principle of law enunciated by this Court in a number of judgments, neither writ jurisdiction can be exercised neither for issuance and implementation of illegal orders nor for protection of ill-gotten gains. AKMIDC v.    Muhammad Shafique 2015 SCR 882 (F) Vice Chancellor &  others vs. Shaukat  Hanif Mir & others, (Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2013 decided on 17.4.2014); Government & others v/s Mohiyuddin Islamic  University  &  others [Civil Appeal No.113/2013, decided on 22.11.2013,  2002  SCR  38  2011  &  SCR  75  rel.
  229. CPC — Order VI, rule 17 — writ — amendment of pleadings before the High Court — when an amendment is allowed and the amended writ is filed then an opportunity has to be provided to the respondents for filing the amended written statement. Fatima Bibi versus Najma Parveen & others 2016 SCR 15 (B)
  230. maintainability of — aggrieved person — Held: every state subject has a right to challenge the law by way of filing writ petition, whenever the legislature makes a law which is against the provisions of Constitution. AJ&K Council v. AJ&K  Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 145 (P)
  231. Admission of — question of public importance — Supreme Court only intervenes in the admission orders if the same have been passed in lack of jurisdiction or disregard of any law. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Raja Masood Mumtaz Rathore 2016 SCR 480 (B) 2004 SCR 476, 1994 SCR 323, 1999 SCR  261  &  2014  SCR  1470  rel.
  232. Laches — Relief by way of writ is a discretionary relief — a person, who slept over his rights for a pretty long time, cannot seek equitable relief — writ petition against notification dated 17th August, 2005 was filed on 29th August, 2008, after a period of three years and one month from the date of issuance. No explanation for delay has been furnished — The writ petition is badly hit by laches. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Rafique  & 6 others 2016 SCR 655 (B)
  233. Implementation of the order of the High Court — The authorities despite clear direction of the High Court failed to implement the judgment of the High Court — The matter does not fall in the terms and conditions of service of the civil servant— It is the matter of enforcement of the judgment of the High Court. The writ petition competently filed. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Hadayat Ullah Khan 2016 SCR 688 (C) 2000 SCR 7 rel.
  234. Complicated questions of facts cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. Muhammad Sadiq v. AJ&K Govt.& others 2016 SCR 709 (A)
  235.  Exercise of — question of facts which could have been determined on the perusal of record without adverting to make the detailed inquiry is permissible to be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Muhammad Sadiq v. AJ&K Govt.& others 2016 SCR 709 (C)
  236. Alternate remedy — availability of — no bar in issuance of writ — or make remedy of writ ineffective —if adverse order issued despite/during and in violation of status quo order—So far as the argument regarding the remedy of appeal is concerned, this proposition has been misconceived by the parties and also by the learned High Court for the reason that when the respondent approached the High Court before issuance of termination order and remained successful in obtaining interim injunction, thereafter, if any order is passed in violation of the court’s order that cannot make other remedy of writ ineffective or bring it in the mischief of availability of alternate remedy.  University of AJ&K & others v. Khawar Naz 2016 SCR 866 (B)
  237.  Dismissal in limine — in absence of exact facts and figures, and comments on behalf of Govt. or department—dismissal of writ in limine by High Court not proper—On behalf of Government or department neither any comments have been filed nor any facts and figures have been brought on record. Prima Facie, the appellant has an arguable case so the dismissal of writ petition in limine is not proper. Sabina Bibi v. AJ&K Govt. & 5 others 2016 SCR 874 (D&F)
  238. Subsequent writ petition without disclosing the earlier one — A party seeking relief by way of writ petition must come with clean hands — It is well established principle of law that a party who comes to the Court while suppressing facts is not entitled to any relief. As the appellant filed the subsequent writ petitions without disclosing the earlier one, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the same. M. Binyamin v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2016 SCR 1045 (A) 1993 SCR 105 & 1998 SCR 9 rel.
  239. Filed incompetently — other applications filed during the pendency of writ —  maintainability of — Held: that when the writ petition was filed incompetently then the other applications filed during the pendency of writ petition cannot be entertained. M. Sagheer v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2016 SCR 1666 (C)
  240.  Constitutional powers of the High Court — Held: that while exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction the learned High Court cannot act as a Court of appeal and Further held: the Constitutional powers can only be exercised where any violation of law has been made. Syed Javaid Hussain Gillani v. Custodian Evacuee Property & another 2016 SCR 1101 (E) 2001 SCR 210 rel.
  241. The appointment order of respondent appears to be an ill-gotten gain — writ cannot be issued for retention of ill-gotten gain. Divisional Dorector Schools & 4 others v. Syeda Fardous Naqvi & 2 others 2016 SCR 1253 (D)
  242. Shamilat deh land — illegal possession — A person who is in illegal possession has no right to maintain a writ petition — A relief by way of writ petition is a discretionary relief must come in the Court with clean hands. Rafaqat H. & others v. Azad Govt. & 11 others 2016 SCR 1302 (A)
  243. Enforcement of the service Rules — whether jurisdiction of the High Court  in  writ jurisdiction  under section 44 , or of the Service Tribunal under section 47 of AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — remedy sought is implementation of  the Rules — no question of determination of  terms and conditions of service — nor enforcement of personal terms and condition sought — High Court powers to direct any person dealing with the affairs of AJ&K  to act according to law — The argument that the matter relates to terms and conditions of service also appears to be superficial. According to the material facts of the writ petition the petitioner has sought remedy that after enforcement of the Rules when the post has to be filled through appointment by promotion how a person appointed by transfer can hold such post. The remedy of direction for implementation of the Rules has been sought. Neither there was any question of determination of the terms and conditions of service, nor the petitioner has prayed for any specific remedy for enforcement of his personal terms and conditions of service. Moreover, according to the statutory provisions dealing with the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal the prayed direction does not fall within its competency. According to juxtapose study of the provisions of sections 44 and 47 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution  Act, 1974, the subject matter of the writ petition, according to its nature, does not fall within the purview of section 47.  Thus, the remedy is available under the provision of section 44 which recognized that the High Court is vested with the powers to direct any person dealing with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to act according to law. Thus, this objection is also not maintainable in view of peculiar facts of this case. Javed Iqbal v. Tasadaq Hussain & 9 others 2016 SCR 1589 (C)
  244. — Ill-gotten gains— the remedy by way of writ is an equitable remedy— the party must come with clean hands—The judgment obtained by a party by relying upon forged and fabricated document for procuring a favourable judgment, is a fraud upon the Court— such act is an ill-gotten gain— writ cannot be issued for retention of ill-gotten gains. Mst. Nighat Srwar v. Mst. Shabana Kausar & others 2017 SCR 158 (F)
  245. —Civil Service—competency of— A civil servant can seek a direction to the effect that his case be considered for promotion on merit. Held: A direction for promotion of a civil servant cannot be issued by the Court in writ jurisdiction. Mukhtar Ahmed & another v. Chief Engineer PWD & others 2017 SCR 21 (A)
  246. —Laches— Principle of laches is to be applied according to the facts of each case as the same is equated with the principle of estoppel and not the statutory bar of limitation— writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of laches without examining the dictates of justice in the claim of each party apart from examination of law and jurisdictional points involved in the matter. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (A)                                
  247.                 — Laches—doctrine of laches apply according to the circumstances of each case. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (B)
  248. —Enforcement of contractual obligations in writ jurisdiction—maintainability of—Held: that this Court in the case titled Azad Govt. & others vs. Muhammad Siddique Khan & others [C. Appeal No.70/2015 decided on 18.05.2017], has taken the view that when the contract is executed by the public functionary and such a public functionary has arbitrarily taken any action against the fundamental rights of the state subjects, then the Court is competent to examine his acts notwithstanding the fact that the matter relates to contractual obligations. M/S Ideal Engineering v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1100 (F)
  249. —Ill-gotten gains—protection of—by exercising of constitutional jurisdiction—Held: that the ill-gotten gains cannot be protected in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. M/S Ideal Engineering v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1100 (G)
  250.                 —according to the general consensus of Court, the disputed question of fact, cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. AJK Government & another v. Muhammad Siddique Khan & 3 others 2017 SCR 640 (D)
  251.                 —contractual liabilities—Scope of— See AJK Government & another v. Muhammad Siddique Khan & 3 others 2017 SCR 640 (G)
  252. —Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974   , section 42 — maintainability of writ petition —argument: alternate remedy of appeal was available and writ petitions were not competent— Held: in the matter in hand, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court for determination of the authority of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the matter through writ petitions. Argument repelled. The respondent rightly invoked the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Nazakat Hussain & 4 others v. United Bank Limited & others  2017 SCR 1308 (A,B,C,D&E)
  253. —evidence—recording of—in writ jurisdiction—by High Court—in presence of unambiguous statutory provision and pronouncements of the Superior Courts—Held: No need to record evidence— For the argument that to determine whether the appellants fall within the definition of worker/workman, evidence was required to be recorded, it may be stated here that in presence of clear and unambiguous statutory provisions of law and the pronouncements of the Superior Courts have , there was no need to indulge in the exercise of recording evidence. Moreover, it has also been proved from different documents that the appellants were performing functions mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity, therefore, the arguments in this regard cannot be considered. Nazakat Hussain & 4 others v. United Bank Limited & others  2017 SCR 1308 (G)
  254. — writ on apprehensions—-not maintainable—Public Accounts Committee —letter —for recovery of amount of tax not charged by Accounts Officer—according to new tax rates—rather collected on basis of old tax rates—in case of failure in recovery—direction that matter be referred to Ehtesab Bureau— challenge to direction given in letter—The Ehtesab Bureau is established in the state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir so as to eradicate corruption and corrupt practices and hold accountable all those persons accused of such practices and matters ancillary thereto. It is paramount duty of the Ehtesab Bureau to investigate the matters and bring on the true facts from the record. In the case in hand, PAC has not refered the case tothe Ehtesan Bureau—as yet, therefore, the apprehension shown would be pre-mature —chief prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau, assured that if the matter is referred to the Ehtesab Bureau the same shall be investigated fairly and in a transparent manner and no harassment shall be caused in the garb of investigation. Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR  1351 (F)
  255. —maintainability of—only if writ petition filed by an aggrieved person—not by a pro-bono publico—A writ can be issued only on the petition of an aggrieved person and not by a pro bono public. In other words a person whose interests have been adversely affected by the impugned legislation or order under challenge, he can competently file a writ petition and then file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court as required by law. Fazal Mehmood Baig v. The University of AJ&K &others 2017 SCR 1380 (B)
  256. —Laches—principle—-applicability of—the rule of laches being not a rule of universal application, had to be applied of the facts and circumstances of each case. Bashir Ahmed & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 195 (B) 2014 SCR 291
  257. —Quo-warranto—Scope of—relief sought in shape of quo -warranto—petitioner also sought relief for themselves—Held: under law, any person whether aggrieved or not may file the writ or quo- warranto, however the only condition is that the petitioner in a writ of quo warranto cannot be get the relief for himself. Bashir Ahmed & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 195  (D) 1999 SCR 404 rel
  258. —writ petition—competency of—competent only in case of violation of law or statutory provision or celebrated principle of law—the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition in limine as under law writ petition is only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision or celebrated principle of law has been made, whereas, no such eventuality is available in the instant case. Resident of Village Sathra vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 592 (B)
  259. —In presence of alternate efficacious remedy—maintainability of writ jurisdiction—Held: Under the Azad Jammu Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction is that the petitioner before the High Court has no alternate efficacious remedy. Where the alternate efficacious remedy is available, the writ petition cannot be entertained directly. Muhammad Sabir vs Muhammad Tufail & others 2018 SCR 794 (B) PLD 1995 SC (AJK) 38 rel
  260. —alternate remedy—According to the constitutional provisions the remedy of writ is only available when no alternate remedy is provided in law—In case of alternate remedy the question of extraordinary writ jurisdiction does not arise. Saleem Ahmed &others vs Judge Family Court & others 2018 SCR 860 (D)
  261. —Writ Jurisdiction—disputed question of facts—cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction—All the questions raised in the writ petition were of disputed in nature as the other side has not admitted the same. In such scenario, it can safely be held that the High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction because according to the principle enunciated b this Court in a number of cases, the disputed questions of facts cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Finance Department vs Ch. Muhammad Naseer & others 2018 SCR 1045 (A)
  262. —second writ petition—on same facts and cause—not competent—exception to rule— second writ petition is not competent if facts involved are same as were involved in the first writ petition. In first petition a prohibition was sought, whereas, in second writ petition the cancellation order has been challenged. Writ was competent. Order of the High Court based on misconception and not maintainable. Hamza Rasheed Baig vs Minister Industries & Mineral Department & others 2018 SCR 1052 (A)
  263. —subsequent writ petition—maintainability of subsequent writ—no bar when earlier writs not dismissed on merits–contention that earlier two writs filed against respondent were dismissed, therefore, instant writ petition was not maintainable–Held: in earlier writ petitions, this Court after thoroughly discussing the material available, formed the opinion that the petitions have been filed with mala fide, whereas, in the instant case, no such material is available on record to show that the appellant approached the Court with mala fide. Argument repelled. Raja Waseem Younis v. The Chairman AJ&K Council & 5 others 2019 SCR 803 (E)
  264.  —Law is well settled that complicated questions of fact cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction. Abdul Baseer Khan & another v. Abdul Razzaq Khan & others 2019 SCR 965 (B)
  265.  —discretionary relief—not for non-serious conduct–appointment of Vice Chancellor MUST—failed to join immediately after his selection—exercise of discretionary relief–Held. The respondent, has not treated his selection as serious, failed to join immediately after his selection and he has not approached the Chancellor, therefore, keeping in view this conduct of the respondent, he was not entitled to any discretionary relief. The Chancellor & others  v. Dr. Iqrar Ahmed Khan & others 2019 SCR 985 (B)
  266. —maintainability of—Public Procurement Rules, 2017–rule 48—alternate remedy—bidding process—u/r 48 alternate remedy is provided for expeditious and effective disposal—the bidder before approaching the Court must have to approach the committee constituted under rule. Azad Govt. & others v. Mubashar Aziz Qadri 2019 SCR 71 (B)
  267. —admission order—must be speaking one—the law is well settled on the point that the admission order must be speaking one and should not be passed in routine.  The order passed by the High Court even at the preliminary stage must be clear, the controversy between the parties should be apparent and it should be manifested that the High Court has passed the same after considering the substantial questions/objections raised before it. Mr. Justice Chaudhary Muhammad Muneer v. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & others 2019 SCR 467 (B & C)  1998 SCR 269 rel
  268. —writ—admission order—Held: the impugned admission order of the High Court is non-speaking order as nothing is spelt out from the order regarding the facts of the case or consideration of the contentions raised by the parties. Even the learned High Court has not mentioned in the impugned order that the other party raised any objection or not and if so, the same are also required to be resolved after admitting the writ petitions for regular hearing. Stance of appellants accepted to the effect that writ admission order is not a speaking one and same is not maintainable in eye of law. Mr. Justice Chaudhary Muhammad Muneer v. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & others 2019 SCR 467 (D)
  269. —Subsequent writ petitions — filed with unclean hands–not entitled to discretionary relief—admittedly, the appellants filed different writ petitions in respect of the same dispute at different times from year 2016 to 2017—almost same grounds taken and same relief prayed in all writ petitions—second last writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.02.2016. Stance of the appellant was that earlier one was got dismissed on assurance of respondents for settlement of issue—Held: the order of the worthy Prime Minster for the implementation of which the appellants filed the instant writ petition was issued on 31.03.2014, during the pendency of earlier writ petition much after the issuance of the order of the Chief Executive. The appellants had the option to amend the writ petition and sought implementation of the said order. If as alleged by the appellants that the respondents had given them any assurance/undertaking for settlement of the issue in the light of the order of the Worthy Prime Minister, then they should have withdrawn the writ petition with the permission to file new writ or should have recorded the statements and placing the true picture before the Court. Plea rightly rejected by the Supreme Court. It appears that the appellants are playing tactic with the Court and under law. Suchlike persons who come to the Court with unclean hands while suppressing the real facts are not entitled to any relief. Al-Sharaf Industries & another  V. AJ&K Govt. & 5 others 2020 SCR 172 (A)
  270.  —successive writ petition—cannot be filed—if any direction was issued and has not been complied with, the appellant can file an application for contempt before the High Court–another writ petition cannot be filed without any legal justification. Aftab Gul   V. Senior Member Board of Revenue & 7 others 2020 SCR 291 (B)             
  271.  —the findings recorded by the special tribunal on proper appreciation of the record and the evidence cannot be set aside in writ jurisdiction— Ahmed Raza & 8 others V. Custodian of Evacuee Proper ty & 7 others 2020 SCR 298 (A)
  272. —implementation of the judgment of Supreme Court–against the concept of finality of the judgment—No further direction required from any of subordinate Court—If a party feels that the other side is violating the judgment of Supreme Court then under the provisions of Article 45 of Interim Constitution, 1974 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1993, the aggrieved can bring the matter into the notice of the Court by filing an application. Sardar M. Ashraf Khan v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2020 SCR 506 (A)
  273. —AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau (composition, terms & conditions of service) Rules, 2017—writ—Order II, rule 2, CPC—application of— claim of the appellants and others in respect of rule 2.05 of  Rules, 2017 was rejected in the previous round of litigation—now by specifying the word ‘syllabus’ the appellants started a new round of litigation which is not permissible under law— the appellants could raise the objection in the previous writ—the findings recorded by the High Court for application of the provisions of Order II, rule 2, CPC are comprehensive and endorsed. Rukhsana Aftab & another  v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 534 (B)
  274.  —writ jurisdiction—factual inquiry cannot be resolved–the factual controversy cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. Inhabitant of Village Awan Patti & 6 others v.  Azad Govt. & 7 others 2020 SCR 764 (B)
  275. —Only an aggrieved person can file the writ petition. AJ&K Government & 3 others Versus Muhammad Ishaq & 19 others 2021 SCR 23 (A)
  276. —Relief by way of writ is a discretionary relief— a person who slept over his rights for a pretty long time, cannot seek equitable relief. Akhlaq Mehmood Versus Azad Government & 10 others 2021 SCR 265 (A)
  277. —Only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision is violated. Asad Saeed Abbasi & another Versus Amad Shabir & 7 others 2021 SCR 271 (A)
  278. —Writ petition is only competent, where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision or any celebrated principle of law has been violated. Mohzim Ali Danish Versus Family Judge & another 2021 SCR 278 (C)  2014 SCR 258 rel.
  279.           —Representative writ— see Farooq Ahmed Butt Versus Azad Govt. & 8 others 2021 SCR 284 (A)
  280.  —Writ is only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision has been violated. Farooq Ahmed Butt Versus Azad Govt. & 8 others 2021 SCR 284 (B)
  281. — Necessary party— appointment order was made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee—without arraying the Selection Committee as party the writ petition was not properly filed—in absence of the necessary party no effective writ could be issued. Muhammad Qadir Khan versus Muhammad Amjid & 3 others 2021 SCR 326 (A) 1996 SCR 161 & 2005 SCR 57 rel.
  282. —FIR—quashment of–an FIR based on malafide, of course can be quashed. Nazia Bibi versus The State & 3 others 2021 SCR 331 (A) 2014, SCR 183 & 2020 SCR 336 rel.
  283. —Laches—relief by way of writ is a discretionary relief — a person who slept over his rights for a pretty long time cannot seek equitable relief. Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah versus Secretary Services & another 2021 SCR 343 (A)
  284. —Necessary party—order impugned before High Court was passed by Prime Minister who has not been impleaded in the line of respondents —writ petition was not maintainable. Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah versus Secretary Services & another 2021 SCR 343 (B)
  285. —Writ is only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision or any celebrated principle of law has been violated. Jan Muhammad v. Sabir Hussain & others 2022 SCR 120 (B) 2014 SCR 258 ref
  286. —Maintainability of —writ petition is competent where any person performing the functions in connections with the affairs of AJ&K or local authority has done or is doing which is not permitted by law to do, or is not doing which is required by law to be done. The word ‘law’ used in the constitutional provisions also includes the Constitution itself. Sardar Tanveer Ilyas v. Ch. Muhammad Yasin & others 2022 SCR 646 (J) 2014 SCR 258 & 2018 SCR 592 rel.
  287. —Laches—recurring cause of action—Held: non-payment of the pensionary benefits by the department was a continuing wrong, hence, the principle of laches is not attracted— the bar of laches cannot be over emphasized in a case where the relief claimed is based on a recurring cause of action. Azad Govt. & Others v. Maroof Begum & another 2022 SCR 688 (A) PLD 2013 SC 268 rel.
  288. —Under law writ petition is only competent where there is any violation of law or any statutory provision or any celebrated principle of law has been violated. Ch. Lal & others v. Habib –Ur-Rehman & others 2022 SCR 752 (A)2014 SCR 258 and 2018 SCR 592 ref.
  289. —Scope of—Writ can be issued only on violation of any law—Appointing Authority, made no violation of law by refusing to appoint respondent on illegal recommendation of Selection Committee—No ground for issuance of writ was available with the High Court, as the writ can be issued only violation of any law. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (J)
  290. —Against show cause notice — maintainability of — A show cause notice can only be challenged in writ petition if the same is issued without lawful authority but it cannot be so challenged if it has been issued by a competent authority but the fact of the matter is that of through a show-cause-notice, an adverse material brought to the notice of the concerned person without previously determining the finality of that material and the person likely to be adversely affected is given an opportunity to explain his position. So, without such like eventuality, the writ petition against the notice is not maintainable. D.I.G. Police & another v. Adeel Afsar & another  2022 SCR 1210 (B) 2000 SCR 308 & 2014 SCR 1120 ref.
  291. — writ—maintainability of–In respect of disputed question of fact — held: ordinarily, the High Court does not enter into the disputed questions of facts, which require recording of evidence and has to decide the case before it on the basis of documents and affidavits and if contention raised in writ petition finds sufficient support from documents, the court is obliged under law to issue appropriate writ and grant prayed relief. However, this rule is not absolute in cases where other adequate remedy is not available. The High Court is under obligation to enter into necessary prob to reach the correct conclusion. Shahnaz Qamar v. Iftikhar Begum & others 2022 SCR 1277 (A) 2007 SCR 491 & 2019 SCR 261 ref.
  292. — Contents and material of — a writ cannot be issued in vacuum rather it is the duty of the petitioner to bring on record the sufficient material to enable the Court to determine the proposition involved in the case. Azad Govt. & others versus Fiaz Ahmed & others 2023 SCR 796 (B) 2015 SCR 355 rel.
  293. — CPC — Order I, Rule 8— representative writ — writ petition filed in representative capacity without obtaining permission from the Court as required under Order I, Rule 8, CPC — writ liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Imtiaz Hussain Shah & 15 others versus Secretary Public Works & others 2023 SCR 625 (C)
  294. — laches — the relief by way of writ petition is a discretionary relief and a person who slept over his nights for a pretty long time, cannot seek equitable relief — Muhammad Awais versus Full Board of Revenue AJ&K & others 2023 SCR 745 (B) 2016 SCR 655 ref.
  295. — maintainability of — section 22-A, Cr.Pc. See Regional Manager Utility Stores Coproration versus Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace MZD & 03 others 2023 SCR 661 (A)
  296. — writ cannot be issued for issuance, protection, implementation, retention or revival of an illegal order Abdul Aziz & others versus Board of Revenue AJK & others 2023 SCR 967 (B) 2015 SCR 882, 2002 SCR 38 & 1992 SCR 149 ref.
  297. — admission order — challenge to — admission orders passed by the High Court should not be intervened, however, this principle does have some exceptions — if an admission order is result of lack of jurisdiction or in blatant disregard of law, then intervention may be warranted — Ch. Muhammad Ismail vs Ch. Maqbool Ahmed Gujjar & 24 others 2024 SCR 60 (A&B) 2004 SCR 476 & 1994 SCR 323 ref.
  298. — admission order — interference of — Supreme Court as a Court of appeal on the order passed by High Court, would interfere in an order of admission of writ only when it is shown to be clearly violative of constitutional or other legal provisions on a cursory view and not in a case requiring deep & cumbersome appreciation of question of law or fact; otherwise it would amount to pre-empt the jurisdiction of High Court — at admission stage, the view taken by High Court is of tentative nature — opposite party has every right to raise all objections in the written statement — Supreme Court interferes at admission stage of a writ petition in appeal only where total lack of jurisdiction or any flagrant disregard of law apparent on the face of record is found & not otherwise. Shahid Anwar vs Muhammad Husnain Rafique & others 2024 SCR 210 (A) 2004 SCR 476 ref.
  299. —admission of writ petition for regular hearing—challenge to—grounds—Held: Supreme Court intervenes in the admission order of a writ petition only, when it is shown to be clearly violative of law and the Constitution or other legal principles and not in case requiring deep and cumbersome appreciation of question of law or fact— Abdul Ghani Institute & others vs Awais Arif Awan & others 2024 SCR 416 (A)
  300. CPC — section 91 & Order I rule 8 — representative writ — – procedure for — writ filed in representative capacity — held: such like cases have to be instituted with the consent of AdvocateGeneral u/s 91 or after obtaining permission of the Court u/o I rule 8 CPC. Inhabitants of Village Lower Kot vs Azad Govt. & others 2024 SCR 109 (B) 2023 SCR 625
  301.  — competency of writ petition—in presence of alternate relief —contention: that writ petition was incompetent due to pendency of civil suit—Held: the respondents’ suit sought perpetual injunction. Upon gaining knowledge of the plot allotment to the appellant during the suit, the respondents withdraw it and filed the writ petition before the High Court. In the suit no specific order was challenged rather only sought that the defendant be restrained from interference in the plot in question. Thus, the writ petition has rightly been filed by challenging the specific order dated 30.10.1988— The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was repelled. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (H)
  302. — maintainability of — Elections Act, 2020 — section 81 – — alternate remedy — validity of an election can be challenged through an election petition, if there is any grievance or dispute regarding conduct or outcome of an election — where an alternate and efficacious remedy is available, the writ petition is not competent. Ch. Muhammad Ismail vs Ch. Maqbool Ahmed Gujjar & 24 others 2024 SCR 60 (C) 2011 SCR 50 & 2019 SCR 71 ref.  
  303. —writ petition—admission for regular hearing—challenge to —reasons for interference by Supreme Court—scope—Held: points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before Supreme Court were available to them to be addressed before the learned High Court, hence, at this juncture it would not be appropriate to suspend the order of admission of the writ petitions passed by the learned High Court and assume its role, as the same would amount to pre-empt the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court can only interfere in the admission order of a writ petition, if the same has been passed in total lack of jurisdiction or in disregard of any law. Abdul Ghani Institute & others vs Awais Arif Awan & others 2024 SCR 416 (B) Mustafa Awan v. Khalil Ahmed Chughtai and 4 others, 2004 SCR 476.
  304.  — alternate remedy — maintainability of — See Forest Department vs Mst. Saleem Akhtar & others 2024 SCR 17 (B&C)
  305.  — necessary party — see Inhabitants of Village Lower Kot vs Azad Govt. & others 2024 SCR 109 (A)
  306. — necessary party — see Muhammad Rasheed Khan & 10 others vs Custodian Evacuee Property 05 others 2024 SCR 187 (A)
error: Content is protected !!