Case law on maintainability of writ.
I۔ بنیادی قانونی سوال (Maintainability of Writ)
(1) کیا ہائی کورٹ محض اس بنیاد پر
آئینِ پاکستان کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت دائر درخواست
ناقابلِ سماعت (Not Maintainable) قرار دے سکتی ہے کہ
متعلقہ قانون میں Review کا متبادل علاج موجود ہے،
بغیر اس کے کہ درخواست میں اٹھائے گئے گراؤنڈز کا جائزہ لے؟
II۔ پس منظر (Background Facts)
(1) درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف
ریونیو حکام نے حدبندی (Demarcation) کی رپورٹ کی بنیاد پر
تجاوزات (Encroachments) ثابت کیں۔
(2) درخواست گزاروں نے بالترتیب:
(الف) اسسٹنٹ کمشنر؛
(ب) ایڈیشنل کمشنر (ریونیو)؛
(ج) ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو؛
کے سامنے اپیل و نظرثانی کی، جو مسترد ہوئیں۔
(3) بعد ازاں ہائی کورٹ میں
آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت آئینی درخواست دائر کی گئی،
جسے صرف Maintainability کی بنیاد پر خارج کر دیا گیا۔
III۔ ہائی کورٹ کی رائے
(1) ہائی کورٹ کے نزدیک:
(الف) پنجاب بورڈ آف ریونیو ایکٹ 1957 کی دفعہ 8
Review کا ایک مؤثر اور مناسب متبادل علاج فراہم کرتی ہے؛
(ب) لہٰذا آئینی درخواست قابلِ سماعت نہیں۔
IV۔ سپریم کورٹ کے طے کردہ اصول
A۔ متبادل علاج اور آئینی اختیار
(1) سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ:
(الف) متبادل علاج کی موجودگی
آرٹیکل 199 کے اختیار کے وجود کو ختم نہیں کرتی؛
(ب) یہ اصول صرف
آئینی اختیار کے استعمال کو منظم (Regulate) کرتا ہے۔
(2) عمومی اصول یہ ہے کہ
جہاں مؤثر متبادل علاج موجود ہو،
وہاں ہائی کورٹ غیر معمولی حالات کے بغیر
آئینی اختیار استعمال نہیں کرے گی۔
B۔ غیر معمولی حالات (Exceptional Circumstances)
(1) متبادل علاج کے باوجود
آرٹیکل 199 استعمال ہو سکتا ہے اگر:
(الف) حکم اختیار سے بالکل ماورا ہو؛
(ب) بدنیتی (Malafide) پر مبنی ہو؛
(ج) حکم باطل (Void) ہو؛
(د) کارروائی coram non judice ہو۔
V۔ Review اور Appeal میں بنیادی فرق
A۔ Review کی محدود نوعیت
(1) Review ایک قانونی و محدود اختیار ہے
جو صرف قانون کے تحت دیے گئے گراؤنڈز تک محدود ہوتا ہے۔
(2) دفعہ 8 پنجاب بورڈ آف ریونیو ایکٹ 1957 کے تحت
Review صرف درج ذیل بنیادوں پر ہو سکتی ہے:
(الف) نیا اور اہم ثبوت دریافت ہونا؛
(ب) ریکارڈ پر واضح غلطی (Error apparent on the face of record)؛
(ج) اسی نوعیت کی کوئی اور معقول وجہ
(جو اوپر دی گئی بنیادوں سے مشابہ ہو)۔
(3) Review کو
Appeal کا متبادل نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔
B۔ “Any other sufficient reason” کی تشریح
(1) سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ
یہ فقرہ ejusdem generis کے اصول کے تحت پڑھا جائے گا۔
(2) اس کی وسیع تشریح
Review کو Appeal میں تبدیل کر دے گی،
جو قانون ساز کی نیت کے خلاف ہے۔
VI۔ ہائی کورٹ کی غلطی
(1) ہائی کورٹ نے:
(الف) درخواست گزاروں کے گراؤنڈز کا جائزہ نہیں لیا؛
(ب) یہ نہیں دیکھا کہ آیا وہ گراؤنڈز
Review کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتے بھی ہیں یا نہیں۔
(2) اگر کوئی گراؤنڈ Review کے دائرہ میں نہ آتا ہو
تو Review کا علاج Illusory ہو جاتا ہے
اور مؤثر نہیں رہتا۔
(3) ہائی کورٹ نے
“adequate and efficacious remedy”
کے تصور کو غلط طور پر لاگو کیا۔
VII۔ سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
(1) سپریم کورٹ نے:
(الف) آئینی درخواست کو محض
Maintainability
کی بنیاد پر
خارج کرنے کا فیصلہ غیر قانونی قرار دیا؛
(ب) سول پٹیشن کو اپیل میں تبدیل کیا؛
(ج) ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ کالعدم قرار دیا۔
(2) معاملہ ہائی کورٹ کو واپس بھجوا دیا گیا
تاکہ:
(الف) درخواست گزاروں کے گراؤنڈز کا جائزہ لے؛
(ب) یہ طے کرے کہ Review
واقعی مؤثر علاج ہے یا نہیں؛
(ج) پھر
Maintainability
پر فیصلہ کرے۔
VIII۔ خلاصۂ اصول (Ratio Decidendi)
آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت آئینی درخواست کو
صرف اس بنیاد پر ناقابلِ سماعت قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا
کہ قانون میں Review کا متبادل علاج موجود ہے،
جب تک یہ نہ دیکھا جائے کہ
درخواست میں اٹھائے گئے گراؤنڈز
اس Review کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتے بھی ہیں یا نہیں۔
Must read judgement
THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Athar Minallah
CIVIL PETITION NO.888 OF 2024
(Against the judgment dated 01.2.2024 of the
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in
Writ Petition No.3692 of 2022)
Muhammad Safeer and others
…
Petitioners
Versus
Muhammad Azam and others
…
Respondents
For the petitioners:
Mr. Taimoor Aslam Khan, ASC
For respondent No.1:
Ch. HafeezullahYaqoob, ASC
assisted by Sarang, AHC
Date of hearing:
12.06.2024
ORDER
Athar Minallah, J.- The petitioners have invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 185(3) of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’)
and they have sought leave against the judgment, dated 01.02.2024,
passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed under Article 199
was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability.
2.
An application was filed by Muhammad Azam (‘respondent
No.1’) before the revenue officials for demarcation of the property
described therein. The Gardawar Halqa (‘respondent No.6’), after
completing the demarcation proceedings, vide report dated 13.10.2021
had concluded that encroachments were made by the petitioners. The
latter preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner
(‘respondent No.4’) and it was dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2022.
The petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction and their petition
was dismissed by
the
Additional Commissioner (Revenue)
[‘respondent No.3’] vide order dated 13.4.2022. The petitioners then
CP 888/24
assailed the orders before the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue,
Punjab (‘respondent No.2’) and their revision petition was also
dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2022. The petitioners ultimately
invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, vested under
Article 199 of the Constitution, but the petition was dismissed on the
sole ground of maintainability. The learned High Court was of the view
that the remedy provided under section 8 of the Punjab Board of
Revenue Act 1957 (‘Act of 1957’) was adequate and efficacious and,
therefore, the petition under Article 199 was not competent.
3.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
petitioners had challenged the orders passed by the respective revenue
officials before the High Court by invoking the jurisdiction vested in it
under Article 199 of the Constitution. They had raised multiple
grounds in their petition for challenging the said orders. However, the
High Court was of the opinion that since the remedy by way of review,
provided under Section 8 of the Act of 1957, was adequate and
efficacious, therefore, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution
was not maintainable.
4.
We have noted that the High Court, without adverting to the
grounds expressly taken by the petitioners in their petition, concluded
that the remedy by way of review provided under section 8 of the Act of
1957 was adequate and efficacious for the purposes of entertaining the
petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is settled law that the
rule that the High Court will not ordinarily entertain a petition under
Article 199 when an adequate remedy is available and such remedy
only regulates the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and does not
affect its existence. When the law provides an adequate remedy,
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 will ordinarily only be
exercised in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances
CP 888/24
which may justify exercising jurisdiction when an adequate remedy is
available are when the order or action assailed before the High Court
is palpably without jurisdiction, manifestly malafide, void or corum non
judice. The tendency to bypass a statutory remedy is ordinarily
discouraged so that the legislative intent is not defeated. The High
Court, while exercising its discretion, must take into consideration the
facts and circumstances in each case in order to determine whether
the remedy provided under the statute is illusory or not. These
principles have been consistently highlighted by this Court.1
5.
The power of review stems from the statute and, therefore, it is
to be exercised by a court or an authority having regard to the
conditions and limitations expressly prescribed by the legislature. The
scope of review is distinct from that of an appeal. In case of an appeal
all questions of fact and law are to be considered but the scope of a
review is limited to the conditions and limitations expressly provided
under the relevant statue which confers the power. Sub-section (1) of
section 8 of the Act of 1957 sets out the scope and the grounds for
exercising the power of review. The three grounds expressly stated in
section 8(1) of the Act of 1957 are:(i) discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within the knowledge or could not be produced by the person seeking
review at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made,
(ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and lastly,
1Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279),
Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore and 3 others v. Messrs S.M. Ahmad and
Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad (1999 SCMR 138), Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of
Customs, Customs House, Lahore 1999 SCMR 1881), Ch. Muhammad Ismail v.
FazalZada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others(PLD 1996 SC 246), Income-Tax Officer
and another v. M/s. Chappal Builders (1993 SCMR 1108), Commissioner of Income
Tax, companies-II and another v. HamdardDawakhana (Waqf), Karachi (PLD 1992 SC
847), AbdurRehman v. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1983 SC 21), The
Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan,
Works Division and 2 others (PLD 1972 SC 279), Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir
Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others (PLD 1961 SC 119), Tariq Transport
Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha and others (PLD 1958
SC 437
CP 888/24
‘for any other sufficient reason’. The review jurisdiction conferred
under section 8 of the Act of 1957 is, therefore, confined and limited to
the said three grounds. This Court has held in the case of Muhammad
Din2 that the expression ‘for any other sufficient reason’ does not
extend to every cause which would make the remedy by way of review
available but such cause must be relatable to the circumstances as
discovery of new and important matter or some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record. The expression, therefore, is to be
read ejusdem generis with the preceding expressions or grounds. Any
other interpretation would change the nature of the review contrary to
the legislative intent, because the legislature had indeed not intended
to provide the remedy of an appeal. The scope of the review jurisdiction
under section 8 of the Act of 1957 is, therefore, restricted to the
grounds expressly prescribed by the legislature.
6.
We have gone through the impugned judgment and it is obvious
from its plain reading that the High Court, without adverting to the
grounds taken by the petitioners, had dismissed the petition solely on
the ground that the remedy of review under section 8 of the Act of
1957 was adequate. This conclusion, without examining the grounds
taken by the petitioners, was not sustainable. The High Court could
only have formed an opinion whether the remedy under section 8 of
the Act of 1957 was adequate and efficacious in the light of the facts
and circumstances of the matter before it, particularly having regard
to the grounds taken by the petitioners in their petition. Any ground
taken and not covered within the scope of the jurisdiction of review
provided under section 8 of the Act of 1957 would have rendered the
remedy illusory and definitely not adequate for the purposes of
exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. This
2Muhammad Din and others v. Muhammad Amin and others (PLD 1994 SC 288)
Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others (1991 SCMR 2307)
CP 888/24
Court, in the case of Syed Asad Hussain3 has observed that the
expression adequate remedy represents an efficacious, reachable,
accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy. The High Court,
therefore, misdirected itself by excluding from consideration the
grounds taken by the petitioners so as to determine whether the
review jurisdiction was adequate in the context of exercising
jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the expansive interpretation given to the expression 'for any
other sufficient reason' amounted to changing the scope of the review
jurisdiction not intended by the legislature. If the High Court, after
examining the grounds taken by the petitioners and the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand was satisfied that they were covered
within the scope of the remedy expressly provided under section 8 of
the Act of 1957 then it would have been justified in deciding the
question of maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the
Constitution. We are afraid that this was not what the High Court did
in the case before us.
7.
For the foregoing reasons, we convert this petition into an appeal
and the same is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
Consequently, we remand the matter to the High Court for deciding
the question of maintainability in the light of the principles highlighted
above.
Judge
Judge
Islamabad the
12th June 2024
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Aamir Sheikh/Rameen Moin
3
Syed Asad Hussain and others v. Syed Ghulam Khatib (2023 SCMR 325)