MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had declined to grant an interim stay order in a review petition regarding the petitioner's admission to a medical college. The petitioner, Muhammad Jaffar, had been admitted to Punjab Medical College against a reserved seat for Tribal Agencies, but his admission was subsequently challenged by respondent Javed Iqbal via a writ petition, which the High Court allowed. The petitioner sought a stay order in his review petition, claiming the High Court's refusal was based on the erroneous assumption that the previous order had already been complied with. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere in the High Court's internal proceedings or factual determinations regarding the status of compliance. The Court emphasized that such matters of fact fall within the domain of the High Court and that the petitioner should seek relief directly from the High Court or the Chief Justice regarding the urgency of the hearing date. The petition was dismissed.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's internal management of its docket and hearing dates?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere in factual determinations regarding the compliance of a High Court order during special leave proceedings?
- Can a petitioner seek relief from the Supreme Court regarding the urgency of a hearing date in the High Court?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-----This is a petition for special leave to appeal from .An order dated 24th of October 1978 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Review Petition No. 634 of 1978 arising out of Writ Petition No. 564 of 1978.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts are these.: Muhammad Jaffar petitioner applied for admission in the Medical College against seats reserved for Tribal Agencies in the various Medical Colleges ' of Pakistan and consequently he was admitted against one of the reserved seats for these areas in the Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad. But on the 29th of July 1978, Javed Iqbal respondent No. 5 filed a Writ Petition No. 564 of 1978 alleging therein that the Provisional Certificate of N. C. C. Training issued to the petitioner was not valid and as such he had no better right to get his admission against the seat allotted to him. On the 25th of September 1978, a Division Bench of the High Court accepted the writ petition of the respondent and allowed his admission in the Punjab Medical College Faisalabad against the seat allotted to the petitioner herein.
3. On this the petitioner herein filed a Review Petition No. 634 of 1978 for setting aside the order dated 25th of September 1978 allegedly passed ex parte against him without notice. Alongwith this the petitioner also filed a miscellaneous application for issuance of an interim stay order. But on the 24th of October 1978 the Court directed that the case may be fixed "after a short interval". The Court however, declined to grant any stay order with the observation that "it has been stated that the order of this Court has already. Been complied with." We are given to understand that the review petition itself has been set down for hearing on the 13th of December 1978. '
4. "Under these circumstances, it is intimated that Mr. Javed Iqbal son of Shadi Gul of North Waziristan Agency cannot be admitted in this college in place of Mr. Muhammad Jaffar who is already a student of this institution, till such time the case is finally decided by the Court concerned."
5. On the strength of this information the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the interim stay order was refused to the petitioner by the High Court on an erroneous assumption that its previous order had "already been complied with." In these proceedings we are not inclined to interfere in this special jurisdiction on such like questions of fact falling within the domain of the High Court. The petitioner may, if so advised, apply afresh to the High Court on the strength of this letter for the relief to which he may be entitled in accordance with law.
6. Already in the impugned order dated 24th of October 1978, the High Court realising the urgency of the matter had directed that the review petition may be fixed "after a short interval". In this connection however, the learned counsel is aggrieved that .In spite of this a long date has been fixed for hearing of the ,case on the 13th of December 1978. This is a matter which the petitioner may suitably bring to the notice of the Chief Justice for the necessary relief and we see no reason to interfere with the internal working of the High Court in these proceedings before us.
7. For the foregoing reasons there is no force in this petition which is dismissed.