Writ jurisdiction

  1. Contractual liability — Agreement of milling wheat — Handling charge 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)
  2. Contractual liability — 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 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. High Court has no jurisdiction to transfer proceeding pending before an executive or judicial officer and to decide it itself — High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot be substitute its own opinion of an administrative officer. Shaheen Asad  v. Azfar Yaseen and 4 others 2000 SCR 308 (J)
  6. The petitioner has failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Court — The petitioner if so advised can file a private complaint — The writ petition is filed if there is no other alternate remedy available — In presence of alternate remedy, particularly in criminal cases, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under section 44 of the AJK Interim Constitution Act. Mst. Nusrat Begum v. Shabbir Ahmed & 4 others 2005 SCR 420 (A)
  7. For invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court the prerequisite is that a right has been infringed and no other adequate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.  AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & 2 other 2014 SCR 382 (L)
  8. Exercise of — by High court — not as court of appeal — against order of subordinate courts — not allowed — according to enunciated principle of law in writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot sit as Court of appeal against orders of the subordinate Courts. Noor Din & 4 others v. Abdul Hameed & 8 others 2016 SCR 928 (A)
  9. —section 44, AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974—High Court is to determine—questions for exercise of writ jurisdiction— whether any person authorised to perform functions of affairs of AJ&K, acted as required by law, or fail to as such—According to the statutory provisions of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, while exercising the writ jurisdiction the High Court has to determine whether any person performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir has acted according to law or not, or has failed to do what the law requires to be done. Basharat Mehmood v. Raja Muhammad Waleed & 8 others 2017 SCR 257 (A)
  10. —Ill-gotten gains—neither the writ jurisdiction can be exercised for protection of ill-gotten gains nor for illegal acts. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. M/s.Qureshi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills & 6 others 2017 SCR 1231 (C)                                                     
  11. —Writ–maintainability—unclean hands—fraud etc. —the relief in the writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and the party who does not approach the Court with clean hands, plays fraud and conceals the material facts or makes misstatement, is not entitled to any discretionary relief. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. M/s.Qureshi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills & 6 others 2017 SCR 1231 (D)            
  12. —exercise of—matters of terms and conditions—Held: According to the statutory provisions of law, the ‘terms and conditions’ include from appointment till pension and all the related matters— The propositions raised in the writ petition i.e. determination of the pension etc. clearly relate to terms and conditions of service—According to the constitutional provisions relating to the matters of terms and conditions of service the jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Service Tribunal and the writ petition is not competent. Ch. Muhammad Suleman v. Accountant General & others 2017 SCR    1268 (A)
  13. —exercise of—matters of terms and conditions of service— determination of —pension etc.— AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974— section 47 & 47-A— AJ&K Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act, 2016—section 8— AJ&K High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011—Rules 16 &19—AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, AJ&K Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977— AJ&K Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 —argument  that under section 47-A the employees of the Courts are not civil servants thus the provisions of section 47 are not attracted—Held: misconceived— under Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016, the  member of the Subordinate Judiciary has been defined which includes the employees of subordinate judiciary—u/s 8 the appeals pending before the tribunal  established under Service Tribunals Act, 1975 relating to the member of  subordinate judiciary  shall stand transferred to the Tribunal established under Act, 2016— under Rules, 2011, framed u/s  47-A of Act, 1974, some of the terms and conditions of service are  expressly provided, whereas under rule 16 rest of the terms and conditions have to be regulated according to the provisions for the time being enforced and applicable to the employees holding posts in Civil Secretariat —u/r 16, the terms & conditions of service include pay, allowances, leave, retirement, superannuation, pension, gratuity, provident fund etc.—u/r 19 Civil Servants Act, 1976 &  E&D  Rules, 1977 etc. shall apply to all the matters not specifically mentioned in these rules— in view of above the subject-matter of the writ relates to the terms and conditions of service and the remedy was not available in writ jurisdiction. Ch. Muhammad Suleman v. Accountant General & others 2017 SCR 1268 (B)
  14. —civil service—jurisdiction of the High Court— prayed relief for direction of  up-gradation of the posts—writ dismissed in limine —Jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal examined—appeal lies to the Service Tribunal—only against the final order of the departmental authority—in matter relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the appellant—matter impugned before the High Court about direction to the departmental authority for disposal of the applications and  up-gradation of posts—the appeal accepted , writ admitted for regular hearing and the case remanded to the High Court— the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is conditional.  One of the conditions is that the civil servant should be aggrieved from the final order whether original or appellate, made by the departmental authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his/her service, otherwise, the appeal cannot be preferred before the Service Tribunal in absence of any such order.  In the present case, the appellants were seeking the direction to the concerned authority for disposal of their applications as well as up-gradation of the posts.  The question was liable to be decided after seeking written statement on merits by the High Court and dismissal of the petition on account of the jurisdiction was not justified—-while accepting the appeal the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court shall now proceed with the matter in accordance with law after admitting the writ petition. Raja Khalil Ibrahim & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 1476 (C)
  15. —Certiorari writ—exercise of—supervisory jurisdiction—scope —argument that High Court cannot grant the prayed writ—held: the Member Board of Revenue exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in him under law and when the excess of jurisdictions is apparent on the face of record then it cannot be said that such order cannot be corrected by the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Munawar Hussain v. Abdullah & another 2017 SCR 1512 (E)  PLD 1991 SC 531 rel.
  16. —Exercise of—fraud—thequestion of fraud complicated and complex in nature cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. Farooq Ahmed v. Custodian & others 2018 SCR 1 (A)
  17. —discretionary relief—the foremost condition for grant of such relief is that the party has to approach the Court with clean hands— remedy cannot be granted to justify the illegal acts of a person  who  approaches  the  Court  with  unclean  hands  just  to misuse the process of law and the Courts. Farhat Aziz vs Azad Govrnment and others 2018 SCR 109 (B) 2016 SCR 365 & 594 rel
  18. —Held:TheCustodian is a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction and if he condones the limitation then the said condonation cannot be revoked or set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Ch. Muhammad Shoukat vs Custodian of Evacuee Property 2018 SCR 456 (H)
  19. —Writ—exercise             of—order           of            family    Court—maintainability—CPC—order vii  rule 10—plaint—jurisdiction—civil Court returned plaint to be presented before family Court—fresh plaint filed with different averments—application for treating the proceedings conducted by civil Court as part of proceedings before the family Court allowed—Held:The family Court travelled beyond  law  —  order  against  which  no  remedy  of  appeal  and revision   is   provided   can   be   challenged   in   extraordinary jurisdiction. Saleem Ahmed &others vs Judge Family Court & others 2018 SCR 860 (C)
  20. —Exercise of—case registered on the direction issued by Justice of piece u/s 22-A Cr. Pc—quashment of—accused arrested in another case—Physically tortured by the police—the Justice of Peace while exercising the powers vested under law issued direction for registration of the case—According to the enforced law, investigating agency is fully empowered to determine all the questions —while passing the impugned order the Justice of Peace, has neither travelled beyond law nor there is  lack of jurisdiction— Held:  in  such  like  situation  the  extraordinary  writ  jurisdictioncannot be exercised merely on the apprehension based upon factual propositions—According to the celebrated principle of law, such questions cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Sohail Yousaf & others vs Yasir Riaz & others 2018 SCR 925 (A)
  21. —Exercise of— extra ordinary writ jurisdiction has to be consciously exercised and if no violation of law is found, the High Court is under obligation to dismiss the fruitless petition at early stage to save the parties from futile litigation as well as the Courts from burden of purposeless cases. Mir Dad Khan vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 928  (B)
  22. —implementation of findings of Ombudsman— Ch. Abdul Latif V. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 121 (A, B & C)
  23. —Exercise of—University building—site selection—feasibility of site—determining the feasibility of a site for construction of a building is the job of the experts — neither High Court nor Supreme Court can determine the same, as many factors are involved in such matters i.e, availability of land, master planning, soil testing, etc–which must be carried out by the concerned—if the experts/concerned declare any site suitable and thereafter anyone does try to shift the project on political basis/personal interest then the Courts can intervene. Sardar Atta Ellahi Abbasi & 6 othersVersus Azad Govt. & 12 others 2021 SCR 171 (B)
  24. — It is well settled principle that the factual controversy cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. Raja Allahdad Versus Mirpur Development Authority & 4 others 2021 SCR 198 (B) 2014 SCR 921 rel.
  25. — The Pharmacy Council of Pakistan is a regulatory body in connection with affairs of education of D. Pharma programme at University of Poonch, Rawalakot, hence, the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue direction to the Pharmacy Council of Pakistan.  Pharmacy Council of Pakistan  versus Faraz Latif & 20 others  2021 SCR 629 (B)
  26. —Transfer of land through PRTO—factual controversy–resolution of—High Court remanded the matter to Custodian–Held: the High Court is not supposed to make the detailed inquiry and resolve the question of facts in its extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction—-the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction can only interfere in a cases of violation of law and where fundamental rights are infringed. Masood Ahmed & another Versus Muhammad Iqbal & 26 others 2021 SCR 659 (A) 2006 SCR 165 & 2003 SCR 240 rel.
  27. —Exercise of—Service matter—relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised– if a civil servant apprehends any adverse order, he may challenge such order after issuance by filing an appeal but writ of prohibition cannot be filed. Dr. Muhammad Saeed  Awan v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 156 (B)
  28. — disputed questions of facts cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Muhammad Qasim v. Superintending Public Health & others 2023 SCR 106 (A) 2021 SCR 198 ref
  29. — exercise of — service matter — the jurisdiction of High Court in the matters relating to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant is barred. Muhammad Qasim v. Superintending Public Health & others 2023 SCR 106 (B)
  30. — after arguing the case, the counsel for the appellant appeared in the chamber and submitted that matter requires minute examination — the conduct of counsel is held highly regrettable and against professional norms — no disciplinary action taken however the counsel was warned to be careful in future — appeal filed by him dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Muhammad Qasim v. Superintending Public Health & others 2023 SCR 106 (C)
  31. — Income Tax Ordinance 2001 — writ petition against order passed in revision to Commissioner — maintainability of writ petition — principles for exercise of writ petition and responsibilities of High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction against the matters falling under appellate authorities and the Tribunals defined and discussed in detail. Held: in presence of alternate remedy under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, there was no occasion to file writ petition before the Court. Syed Abrar Hussain Kazmi v. Commissioner Inland Revenue & others 2023 SCR 469 (D)
  32. — 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)
  33.  — exercise of — implementation of an unlawful order — order passed by Prime Minister is without legal backing — writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for implementation of such order. Azad Govt. & others vs Nadia Akhtar 2024 SCR 82 (D)
error: Content is protected !!